Should having kids be regulated by an organization, to prevent some kids from being born into toxic/abusive families?

[Anonymous]

Yes, having kids should be regulated

No, having kids should not be regulated

Other / I want to see results

Updates

1 y

I am referring to having kids of your own (via conception).

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

This is already happening, and it bars parents from being able to foster children. There was a story of a pair of autistic parents who were repeatedly denied applications to take on handicapped children. They themselves were not physically handicapped, they had full range of motion and motor skills, they were perfectly capable of taking care of a kid or two, and well-equipped to handle many disabilities outside of their own. But because they were autistic, the computer algorithm consistently denied their application based on that fact alone because it meant they were a higher risk for “potential dangers” despite having no history of violence or abuse and everyone they interacted with agreed they would make wonderful foster parents alongside their own children. Programs like the ones you suggest are prone to be filled with unjust biases as they will be made by biased humans. They deny parents who would be good fits because of very minor things like that because of human biases in computer programs that people don’t realize they’re entering in. It’s well-intentioned, but ultimately doomed to cause more problems than it solves.

[Asker]

I should have been more specific. I am referring to having children of their own, not foster parenting or adoption. Thank you for sharing though.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

My point is it’s ableist by nature

[Asker]

Do you think we should prevent kids from being born into toxic/abusive families? Or just let it happen? Survival of the fittest?

[Asker]

If you think we should try to prevent kids from being born into toxic/abusive families, I am curious what you suggest as a possible solution

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You’re well-intentioned, but forcible sterilization or the inability to allow specific people to have children on the basis of the amount of suffering a child may face has a great deal of inherent flaws. Remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[Asker]

What are your views on regulation in general? What is ok to regulate and what is not? Should people who murder be allowed to continue to steal/murder? Should someone who crashes into someone's car be allowed to leave the scene of the accident without any consequences?

I'll look into ableistism, I am not familiar with that,

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You’re taking this on an incredibly defensive tangent over the flaws of your idea. Describe your system to me, abuse can very easily be documented as proof of an ill-fitting parent but how do you document toxicity? You can’t just ban people at random based on word of mouth, you need proof.

[Asker]

I think you are the one that is getting defensive, I am trying to understand your perspective and figure out a way to solve a problem. I agree that you need proof (I'll go further and say scientific proof, not based on faith)
What makes you think otherwise? I am not saying someone should be banned by word of mouth.

[Asker]

I'll provide some concrete examples later this week, so all this is less abstract. I do not want a 'Salem with trials'

[Asker]

*Salem Witch Trials

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You were the one accusing me of allowing murder, man

[Asker]

Read my comment again. Where am I accusing you of murder? I am just asking you questions.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

I think you need to reread mine

[Asker]

I am trying to understand your perspective.

[Asker]

You seem to have interpreted the questions as a personal attack.

[Asker]

Did I say a statement, 'You are someone who would allow murder'?

[Asker]

This is why we need hard proof /scientific proof... ;)

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Maybe we just have different reading skills. You can’t read between the lines and I can

[Asker]

don't like reading in between the lines because there are too many other possibilities. And it's not clear to me how to figure out the right possibility.

I found analysis of literature in English class baffling (how are people deriving X meaning from the text... X is not even mentioned). Also, sometimes, I cannot detect sarcasm.

I wish the average person was more direct/literal. Then, we may not have questions like "She/he did/said this... Does that mean she she/he likes me?" And then having a mix of answers saying yes/no

[Asker]

I am relatively good at math though

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

This is over 20 replies, you want to keep this convo about your functional illiteracy going, feel free to DM me. I’m done otherwise

[Asker]

I don't understand your comment. Do you want concrete examples on the original question or not?

[Asker]

*on this thread

[Asker]

I hope you improve your self esteem / maturity / knowledge of the world so you don't feel the need to put other people down to make yourself feel better about yourself (e. g. describe someone as functionally illiterate). You seem to think of yourself as high and mighty, but you are not. You are just a bully. Whether you want to continue acting as one is up to you... I don't take it personally, but I am disappointed, and I'm done talking with you.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I think it can be organically regulated.

Mandatory DNA tests that prevent mothers from committing paternity fraud for instance would take a huge chunk of the cheating sluts out of the market and release bux providers back into the sexual marketplace for another chance to meet someone faithful. Most of all it would stop those women from just making a kid for a guaranteed paycheck because now the kid isn't a guaranteed paycheck. It would also stop the guy she cheats with from nutting in her because he's going to be the paycheck from the start.

Bring back fault divorce and get rid of alimony. That would also change a lot of selfish decisions that get made, because now they can't just walk away with the cash and prizes while leaving the guy that didn't cheat still paying her rent. Just one of those types of women will stack up about 3 or 4 guys paying her which means they probably can't afford to give a new family a try because they're all paying for her cats and boxed wine.

That's just a couple of examples, but there are many, many more. This is one of the subjects that make me pro-abortion. Legalizing abortion brought the crime rate down drastically over time because there were less unwanted children getting treated like shit and spit out onto the streets. Crime started back up, in my belief because unwanted kids started to equal a paycheck through welfare programs. That fucking socialism. (Welfare is a socialist program to increase kids from broke ass bitches)

That last example really sucks because now they'll have and keep the kids for what they consider free money or a free ride while they provide that kid with a toxic/abusive lifestyle and spit them out onto the streets once they don't make them money.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

It would be inhumane to regulate having kids.

But I find it tempting to do so. In the current state of things, in countries where such institutions exist, the legislative solution is to use child protection units. As imperfect as they are, such units will try to protect kids from abusive parents, either by free cooperation and/or taken by force.

In practice, it consists in dealing with emergencies in a waiting queue, like ER somehow, with limited resources and possibilities. Which means some kids will still get humiliated, neglected, beaten, tortured, raped or killed anyway, during evaluations of this waiting queue. Some kids will be removed from families before maltreatment escalates, some will not. In all cases, kids extracted will still suffer the consequences, one way or another, for a lifetime.

[MemeSupreme]

kinda hard to predict accurately or hold up in court. even rn CPS is overworked to the point it's hard to get kids taken away from parents even if they're neglected

so i can't imagine that organization being able to do much either

[Anonymous]

We used to have a thing called abortion and Rode V. Wade, but those will mostly disappear soon. People will forced to take care of special needs adults and children and they will tell you to endure and pray to god while you have to watch your special needs adult live in a group and never amount to anything. And teens parents will go on the rise because pregnancy after rape will destroy people financially.

But, hey, at least will get a lower price on eggs after a tariff is placed on it right? Is that how the tariff works? I am pretty sure it will lower it.

[Anonymous]

If your too afraid of losing something to risk having it in the first place your the one who has issues.

Stop forcing your issues on other people, the fact that abuse kids don't kill themselfs clearly demonstrates most all of them would rather exist and be abused than not exist at all.

Stop this extremist behavior of trying to force everyone to throw their babies out with the bath water because your obsessively focused on a few rare unfortunate outcomes.

[Asker]

I am surprised you think abused children don't commit suicide.

[Opinion Owner]

Unless your saying all of them commit suicide, The fact that some of them do is not relevant to the issue of deciding to go ahead and kill them before they enter a situation in which they MIGHT be "abused". Which is to say subjected to conditions still far better than most people in human history.

[exitseven]

We need to make having illegitimate children something to be ashamed of again.

[Asker]

Do you think illegitimate children are victims of abuse more so than legitimate children. If yes, why? I am not aware of any related statistics; if you are, please share.

[Asker]

P. S. I accidentally put a period instead of a question mark after "legitimate children'.

[exitseven]

Yes, they are born into poverty and an endless cycle of welfare.

[DrPepper12]

You can't do it but it would be an advancement if so! Better to fix those undesirables features of society

[Anonymous]

And rip up the constitution, there's an idea..

[Asker]

Are you referring to the US Constitution? You seem to think that it goes against what is written in the constitution, is that correct? Please elaborate.

[Opinion Owner]

You are suggesting coercion.

[jahaims]

No, that kind of control would be abused.