NationStates Jolt Archive

While it seems somehow fascistic such proposal, you have to look further then the length of your nose.

Do you like the idea that a repressive violent and uneducated daddy and mommy could raise children?

What’s the benefit for the child? Children who are raised in such a family will do the same with their children. It’s chronic.

If you want to drive a car, you need a license. If you want to start up a business you need a license. If you want to fly an airplane, you need a license. If you want to be a doctor you need a license.

But for raising children, which is such a responsible task, you don’t need one. The moron next door may have dozen of them.

So, my proposal would contain several steps to make sure that unwanted parents NEVER become parents.

Here’s the article list:

ARTICLE I

All people will be genetic modified in such a way that they can’t produce children anymore. This to ensure that nobody is cheating the having-child-tests.

ARTICLE II

If you want children, you and your partner have to do a test. This test will proof that you and your partner are parent-ready.

ARTICLE III

If you don’t pass the test, a parent-learning center will teach you how to become a decent parent. The parent-teacher will decide when people are ready to do the test described in Article II

ARTICLE IV

When you passed the parent test, you have to produce a child-business plan, which is verified by a parent financial expert. This to make sure you can give your potential child a decent education, plenty of healthy food and a roof above his or her head to keep them dry.

ARTICLE V

If you pass the test and you have an approved and verified child-business plan, you'll receive a drug, supplied by the government that will unlock your no-producing-children genes.


What do you think about such a proposal?

A simple drug will change our genetic makeup? Aside from that, Enn does not see this as good - the government should stay out of the bedroom, unless the child is in danger.

Enn,

The government is staying out of the bedroom. You can have your sex like you want. If you want sex with two or more women, do it. If you want that he or she talks dirty to you when having your sex, do it.

This proposal would prevent that less children become in danger. That's the whole point.

If you are a serious parent then you will not have any problems to qualify and thus having children.

As our Ministry of International Affairs: Legal Bureau recently went catatonic from the barrage of senseless proposals they have received, I will only briefly explain why this proposal could never be supported, regardless of wording, by the Holy Empire of Gethamane:

This is an issue of National Sovereignty. If you don't know what that means, look up "sovereignty" and apply the "national" qualifier to it.

Let me say it one more time: This is not an international matter. This is a matter for governments to deal with on their own.

Cute, very cute. I’d love to see it happen but unfortunately the public find it unethical.

Gethamane, the UN’s business is whatever we choose to make it. National sovereignty (like you described it) is completely overridden by the UN.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Sooo many problems.

It assumes we've got the genetic technology to do this and the wealth to employ it so widely, that we'd be comfortable in genetically manipulating our entire population (our government is strongly opposed to the genetic modification of humans), and on and on. I mean, reversible vasectomies would to the same thing for vastly less technology and cost. Either way, this will still be unacceptable to Catholics, Muslims and any number of other religious groups.

First of all, the content of the 'test' is not explicitly mandated, which would give governments an effective license for eugenics. Tends to swear a little more than he should? Tsk, tsk. Homosexuals in the family? Don't want to risk that. Say, how'd you vote last election?

When you passed the parent test, you have to produce a child-business plan, which is verified by a parent financial expert. This to make sure you can give your potential child a decent education, plenty of healthy food and a roof above his or her head to keep them dry.
Outside the upper and professional classes, few people in their late teens or twenties - the ages of highest fertility - have the ability to confidently predict their financial future over the course of the next eighteen or so years. This sounds suspiciously like a mechanism for class eugenics.

We find this unacceptable on any number of levels.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

Do you have an open to such technology, it is unacceptable to rely on another nation for your own ignorance and lack of a basic grasp of chemistry, do you even have a sample of this 'treatment'. Perhaps without the infertility, as there would be allergies and side affects to the aforementioned 'drugs', termination (for infants, under the ages of three) or fostered (ages three and above) should be the fate of an illegal child.
God said sinners should be killed for a reason: over-population. It's only normal for a human to give in to his desires, but one can think about them first, most people aren't ready to be parents, those who are, deserve to feel the pleasures of sexual contact and the like.

Emperor Jake, of the Federation of Cassopia.

Really I thought it was just because he had a complex...*

Seriously I can’t understand the last bit of your post can you please explain it again. S-l-o-w-l-y so my poor germy bran can understand. Please?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

*using humour to highlight my lack of understanding, calling myself stupid.

So you all think it’s better that children are raised by violent parents? You all think that parents who have a proven track of incestuous behavior should have the right to abuse more?

I guess that lots of you have many stocks in the condom industry, isn’t?

The test could be discussed here. I don’t think that voting left, right or center has an influence on your parent skills. Same goes for your opinions about Muslims, religion or whatever.
Countries who are allowing same-sex marriages and even the ones, which allows that, gay or lesbians can have children should pass the test as well.
Every country should send a parent master to create an unambiguous and honest test.

I do not agree that this is an issue for the country itself. You could say this of every UN proposal. If this is the point, then we can drop the UN in its whole.

I’m not out for a ‘better’ class of people. Poor people who have enough financial support to raise a child could pass the test as well. It’s a matter of priorities in such cases. That’s the whole issue. How many people create a business plan BEFORE they have their child? Almost no one, ladies and gentlemen.

And that’s the idea behind it: protect the unborn child by testing the emotional and financial skills of the potential parent.

Yes, I don’t think very poor or young or abusing people should have a child. Their pleasure and desire ends where the potential damage of the child begins.

If you’re not educated enough to raise a child well, the government will help you to be smart enough to raise one. If you are still a teenager and have not the financial backup to have a child, it’s maybe wise (for the unborn child in the first place) to wait a little.

Religious people have no right to moan. I don’t kill unborn life; with this proposal unwanted life will not exist.

Also, there’s an interesting + for us, rulers of countries too. We as governments will have to spend less on anti-drug programs, less people will empty our state treasures by being in hospitals cause the results of drinking abuse or just plain violence.

In the end we will have a better society. It’s a win-win situation for the child, the parents and for the state.

We off the Black New World agree with most of what you have just said but the ‘parenting licence’ system is open for too much abuse.

It may also be useful for you to note that children from a violent background aren’t always violent themselves and vice versa. As humans we have the ability to evaluate our behaviour and change it.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

We gently bribe prospective parents.

If they take parenting courses (some have graphic but convincing videos of bad practices) they get coupons for discounts on diapers, formula, vitamins, and clothing.

It is not an overwhelming success but has had some positive impact.

The boyishly charming yet studiously mature nation of Berkylvania feels that the only response for this proposal is an firm, unequivicable, unrelenting no.

We are concerned by the flagrant human rights violations, challenges to national sovergnty, reliance on untried/untested/non-existant technology and potential for corruption mentioned by our esteemed collegues. Additionally, waving aside all these objections for the sake of argument, we are uncomfortable with the idea of setting up a "child-business plan". To our minds, this approach reduces children to little more than long term financial investments. As most business people will attest, plans change. Do you continually monitor the parent's initial plan and, should they stray from it, euthenize the child in a sort of "parental bankruptcy" situation? If so, where are the guildlines? In fact, where are the guidelines to the business plan in general? It's all very well to say "decent education, plenty of healthy food and a roof above his or her head to keep them dry," but surely this is all open to interpretation (a tent in the back yard is a roof over their head, healthy food is lots and lots of apples but nothing else, decent education might be anything from teaching them to write their own name to advanced string theory, where are the criteria?) and a child needs more than these basic things.

Furthermore, can you point to any conclusive evidence indicating that you can even devise a test that will accurately gauge someone's potential parenting skills? Again, it's very easy (although unfair) to weed out people who have criminal pasts or history of abuse in their family or some sort of mental illness. However, perfectly normal, sane people sometimes are guilty of abuse, not through any sort of malicious intent on their part, but simply because they are not as equiped as they potentially thought for the demands of child rearing or their situations have changed dramatically. Unless you can conclusively prove that your test will accurately predict this 100% of the time, then we can not and will not support a resolution restricting the most fundamental biological imperative.

We do think the honorable nation of Collaboration has a good idea with giving prospective parents incentives to attend government sponsored parenting classes. This seems to be an excellent solution to a problem fraught with murky ethical issues. All individuals still retain their basic biological rights, but perhaps better education will lead to better parenting.

In any event, this resolution simply can not pass nor should it, in this form or in any other and, contrary to what the esteemed delegate from The Black New World stated, we believe it far exceeds anything that could be construed as a reasonable and acceptable UN mandate.

i dont know about the genetic thing, but i would support a license to parent. i have already posted my view so no need to retype.

So in that case, we should drop driving licenses, cause it is an attack on a human right. Think about the advantages: people who can not afford a license will drive cars. Sure more accidents will occur but who gives a damn? The human rights are safe, isn’t?

Look, at first glance, I think it is somehow creepy too. But if you think a little further about this subject then you all know deep inside you that it makes sense.

Raising children is an enormous responsibility and yes, not every human can finish this task to a good end. So why not inventing tools to prevent failures?

For most parents it will not change anything. Most of them are capable of raising children. Most of them don’t rape them. Most of them don’t spend their money on drugs instead on food and education for their kids.

For those people, the parent-schools would only be a help to improve their parent skills.

Then you will have a small share, which you can call borderliners. They are not good enough to be a parent right away, but with a little help of us, they could achieve the parent status.

Only a very small minority will not have the right to raise children. This to protect the unborn child. And now, tell me, what’s wrong about that? What’s wrong about protecting children?

*Considers the idea of some of our governments IRL regulating parenting standards. Shivers. Votes No.*

*Considers some of the whacko NS governments regulating parenting standards. Breaks down in uncontrollable sobbing. Considers taking up arms.*

Camine almost supported this movement until I got to the part about the actual licenses. First off, Camine is strongly against human genetic altering\cloning practices. Second, Camine finds that it is not the Government's place to interfere in family matters unless someone is in danger.

Third, is anyone to say that one's past is a direct influence on one's present and future?

With all due respect, Camine opposes this proposal.

(And on a side note, what about adoption? You don't need Child-Production Genes for adoption. Anyone determined enough could adopt.)

Religious people have no right to moan. I don’t kill unborn life; with this proposal unwanted life will not exist.

Many religions are opposed to any means of contraception at all; not because they oppose abortion, but because they believe sex should be solely procreative. Now we in the government of Rehochipe find this attitude to be kind of bizarre (not to mention boring), but we understand that forcing the religious to break these commitments is slightly less tolerant than taking a dump in the holy water.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

"Third, is anyone to say that one's past is a direct influence on one's present and future? "




Dr Phil tells me that someones past behavior is most definitely a predictor of future behavior. and statistically, he's correct.