If social services must check a would-be parent's background before they can adopt a child, then people should get licences before they are allowed to have their own children, amirite?
I think some people are unfit to have kids and they should have to go through a screening process, but I know it could never happen because it's impossible to enforce.
That is an interesting theory. However, the government has no say (or should have no say, at least) in people's reproduction habits. They cannot chose who is allowed to have their own children and who isn't. But they do have the right to check out the people wanting to adopt a child to make sure they are suitable to be raising that child. It seems messed up, but it's actually right if you think about it.
I was inspired by this when, at around four minutes into the video, they mentioned something about social services. I don't know much about this topic, so I won't really be a suitable person to debate with if you don't agree with me, so sorry about that.
It's any interesting theory, but in practice, would be very difficult. Personally, I think background checks are a good thing, but that social services are too strict. For example, I don't know how it is wherever you live, but in the UK I know there's a massive problem with adopting babies of colour... because adoption agencies are VERY strict about not letting white people adopt babies of a different race, it's extremely difficult for babies of colour to be adopted. Which is dumb.
The first question is of course, how would you implement this? If you force an abortion, then that's awful. If you're forcing the children into care either permanantly or until they get a liscence... well done, you're forcing more children into the adoption programme who actually DO have parents that want them. There's enough of a problem with low rates of adoption as they are. Any home that isn't abusive is better for a child's development than being put in care.
In theory, this sounds like a good idea, but it just won't work in practice. It's unethical to control someone else's reproductive rights.
My biggest argument with this is that it would help out a lot with teenage pregnancy. Also, if you were pregnant and didn't have a license, you could just take the test while you're pregnant. If you didn't pass though, I'm not quite sure what you would do...
That's a preventative measure. It's not like the government can't take away a person's kids if they are abusive or neglectful. There's no way to enforce such a private matter, so it would never work.
How could you possibly enforce that? Force people to have an abortion if they don't have a licence?
I think some people are unfit to have kids and they should have to go through a screening process, but I know it could never happen because it's impossible to enforce.
That is an interesting theory. However, the government has no say (or should have no say, at least) in people's reproduction habits. They cannot chose who is allowed to have their own children and who isn't. But they do have the right to check out the people wanting to adopt a child to make sure they are suitable to be raising that child. It seems messed up, but it's actually right if you think about it.
I was inspired by this when, at around four minutes into the video, they mentioned something about social services. I don't know much about this topic, so I won't really be a suitable person to debate with if you don't agree with me, so sorry about that.
It's any interesting theory, but in practice, would be very difficult. Personally, I think background checks are a good thing, but that social services are too strict. For example, I don't know how it is wherever you live, but in the UK I know there's a massive problem with adopting babies of colour... because adoption agencies are VERY strict about not letting white people adopt babies of a different race, it's extremely difficult for babies of colour to be adopted. Which is dumb.
The first question is of course, how would you implement this? If you force an abortion, then that's awful. If you're forcing the children into care either permanantly or until they get a liscence... well done, you're forcing more children into the adoption programme who actually DO have parents that want them. There's enough of a problem with low rates of adoption as they are. Any home that isn't abusive is better for a child's development than being put in care.
In theory, this sounds like a good idea, but it just won't work in practice. It's unethical to control someone else's reproductive rights.
My biggest argument with this is that it would help out a lot with teenage pregnancy. Also, if you were pregnant and didn't have a license, you could just take the test while you're pregnant. If you didn't pass though, I'm not quite sure what you would do...
Ah, you're right XP
That's a preventative measure. It's not like the government can't take away a person's kids if they are abusive or neglectful. There's no way to enforce such a private matter, so it would never work.
What the fuck why is this upvoted
Most users don't actually think about the post more than a few seconds before voting :\