Some people just don't deserve children...

[Kinoko]

Yeah, in principle I agree with the Chinese government trying to stop population growth (which is honestly what I consider to be the number one most important problem in the world) but there are so many horror stories related to the way it actually works, it's not a good idea. It's hard to think of an alternative though. It's really a matter of educating people MUCH better and bringing children up to be thoughtful, responsible and well-rounded people. It can be done but it's gonna take a LONG time and a lot of effort, and it that time... this problem continues.

I totally agree that there are a lot of straight out BAD parents out there who just should not have the right to have children. It's another problem I just can't think of a realistic solution to. I mean... people have babies. You can't really stop them just by creating govenment policies. I would -love- it if people had to apply to have a child and the system worked wonderfully to allow only good, responsible people suited to parenting who could afford a child to have them. This is just utterly undoable though, if you think about it.

Again, really... the ultimate solution is to raise human beings so that they become good people without financial problems. If I could see that in my lifetime, I'd die awfully happy.

In the short term, I think the best thing we can do is to set a good example for others and praise people who do a good job. Speak out when you see a parent doing something really bad but try to make them understand rather than simply accusing them. It's hard though, when I see a parent doing something really stupid, I want to hit them with a 2 by 4 and take the kid away to a better life.

[TerranRich]

It's funny though, no matter where you go, if you say ONE thing to correct a parent regarding their child[ren], they get all huffy and act like you're persecuting them or something. They get all possessive ("it's MY kid, not yours!") and just plain stop listening. Stubborn bastards. Is it somethng about raising a child that makes a person stubborn and deaf to the outside world? When I have kids, I want all the help I can get. Parenting books, advice from good friends, watching how others do it (good examples, not the ones we've been telling).

As for the parenting licensing idea, if it ever existed, I would be all for it. I'm envisioning something like ten or so questions that you have to answer orally, like "what-would-you-do-if" kinda scenarios. I would definitely take it if it meant filterng out bad parents. Then again, people could lie and give the "right" answer to the questions and just continue to be idiots withtheir children. What then?

[Darth Mandarb]

That's a terrible thing about killing the newborns ... I can't even imagine.

A few years ago some friends and I had this discussion. Ã, I came up with some thoughts ...

Radical System #1
If a woman gives birth and ends up in the hospital (whether she went to give birth or tried to squeeze the kid out in an ally and ended up in the hospital ... whatever) the doctors should perform certain tests.

1) drug test - if there is ANY type of illegal substance in her body she loses.
2) blood/alcohol level - if she's anywhere near intoxicated (this level should be much lower than the driving limit ... she IS pregnent) she loses.
3) the daddy test - if she can't positively prove who the father is, she loses.

#3 is the only one where she should receive any leeway ... but if 1 or 2 are true, the doctors should perform a tube-tying operation (whatever that's called) so she can never have babies again.Ã,  Better yet ... take out the baby, then take out the uterus.Ã,  A woman that would be high and/or drunk while having a child should NEVER be allowed to have babies period.Ã,  So they should ensure she'll not have more.

I think it should be a 1 strike policy.

Radical System #2
Like Kinoko said, they institute a 'license to procreate'. Ã, You have to meet certain criteria in order to have kids. Ã, Perhaps;
1) you must be married
2) you must achieve a certain income
3) you must not have a criminal record
Something like that. Ã, If you don't meet these standards, you can't reproduce. Ã, If you do 1 time, you get taxed up the wazoo! Ã, If you do it again, you lose the ability to ever have kids again (tube tie or removal of testicals ... something) and you pay HUGE fines until the kid(s) are 18.Ã,  BOTH parents.

Of course, the biggest problems that would come from these 'laws' would be that 1) abortion would sky rocket (which would raise another shit storm of debate in the world) and 2) a lot of 'ally' babies would be born because people wouldn't want to get caught having the kid.

So, also like Kinoko said, I just don't see a [reasonable] solution to the problem.Ã,  It's probably going to have to be something radical.

[TerranRich]

The thing with radical suggestions is that they just might work...but they're radical. This goes along the same lines as a money-less society. There are ways to make them work, but people might not like the abrupt and radical change. I'm for the radical system. At the very least, it's a good idea for a future to write about in a game or a book.

[Moox]

Darth, I dont know wether to slap you or build a temple to you. Tube tieing is a bit overboard, drugs and alcohal abuse can be fixed with rehab.
But system 2 I abhor. Income??? Amish families have little income but still manage. Criminal record? please tell me your only refering to felonys. I can see it now, everyone with a speeding ticket loses the right to have kids!

[TerranRich]

There can always be adjustments and conditions. The income thing could be altered so that it fits the lifestyle. If you live in the city and are poor, then no kids (or maybe a limit??). If you live in the country, then income has little effect on childbearing, because needs are minimalized. As for the criminal record, I would think that only felonies would count, and major ones like murder, rape, drug dealing, etc. As for the drug idea, if drugs are detected, then they are forced into rehab and the child taken away until rehab is finished and the person is deemed capable once again.

[DragonRose]

My worst negligent parent story happened this summer.

At the Rennaisance Festival where I worked, there was a dunk arm- a log suspended from a chain with a chair on the end. Ã, At four o'clock there was a show where cast members got dunked in the pond much to everyone's amusement.

This thing was a death trap. Ã, The pond is thirty feet deep, the log could twist and dump you in the water. Ã, We had three people with life guard training around whenever we did the show, and five people, including two guys weighing over two hundered pounds on the end to keep the chair from falling into the water. Ã, While the show was not on (most of the day), the chair was chained in place and locked with a big honking padlock. Ã, There were also signs posted "Do Not Touch- Property of Sheriff's Department."

You'd think people would get the hint.

The second day of the festival, a cast member was wandering past the pond to see a family of four who, after RIPPING THE CHAIN OUT OF THE STAGE, were dunking their three year old son. He called security and forced the people to bring the little boy back in.

"But he was hot!" they cried. Good GOD! Ã, If he's hot, buy him a drink, sit in the shade, or go home! Don't attempt to drown him!

My theory to keep morons from having babies: temporary sterilization at birth. Ã, After you have taken a test that says "Yes! You are not a danger to a new life!" the sterilization is removed. Ã, If you need a license to adopt a dog from the pound, you should DEFINETLY need a license to have a baby. Ã, Screw you, Human Rights! Ã, No one should have the right to make someone else's life a living hell.

End Rant.

[Kinoko]

God damn, I had a huge, thoughtful post that I just lost. Ah well.

Something new.

Dragon: God, it's just unbelievable how STUPID some people are!

[Darth Mandarb]

LostTraveler - I meant those more as suggestions than actual solutions. Ã, But as Rich pointed out, sometimes it's necessary to do radical things. Ã, I, too, am all for radical change if the end result is worth it. Ã, And I think over population and neglegent parenting is a big enough issue to warrent taking drastic steps to remedy the problem.

DragonRose - Unbelievable ... and then they get mad 'cause they got in trouble for being ignorant ... oh the irony.

That's a pretty good idea ... the sterilization at birth thing. Ã, I mean, sure, it too is drastic. Ã, But you're absolutely right that nobody has the right to screw up somebody elses life.

It's too bad if can't be programmed into the human code:

if (person = bad) {
set reproduce=0; // no children allowed
}
else if (person = good) {
set reproduce=1; // can have 1 child
}
else if (person = great) {
set reproduce=2; // can reproduce at will
}
}

Perhaps someday ...

[shbaz]

The last thing I want is any system that questions my right to have a child, no matter what it is it's going to take away my freedom. Required marriage is arbitrary, since that's a traditional thing that a lot of people don't believe in. Besides, with a 50% divorce rate, how can you trust people to take it seriously anyway? Income, criminal record? I thought this was the land of oppurtunity? You sound pretty conservative Darth, especially with that "prove who the father is" part. I don't think that should lose someone their child. It might seem like there is no shortage of people waiting to adopt excess babies but that's only a half-truth since most adopting parents want a white newborn baby. Most babies up for adoption are of mixed race and they're hard to find parents for (at least, in Oklahoma).

Despite that, I feel like I live around the low end of the gene pool. I don't know what could fix it because there are too many idiots to count and if we banned them all from having babies we probably wouldn't have a population for very long.

[Timosity]

A couple of years ago I was staying at a mates place for about a month and the nextdoor neighbours were taking advantage of the wellfare system, both parents unemployed living in quite a small rundown house, with 5 kids and 1 on the way.

The wellfare system in Australia is opposite to China, they encourage people to have more kids and offer more money per child.

It is a problem in some areas and it's usually the poorer people that have more kids and use the money for themselves, and quite often for drugs.

The particular family that I was talking about were just like this. The parents were nice people when you had a conversation with them, but they were both drug addicts which causes mood swings and they did quite a lot of yelling at their kids.

The kids were all under the age of 10, and quite friendly outgoing kids. They did wander off quite often, and often came to visit without the parents knowing. the parents cared and came looking, but looking after 5 young kids would be hard, especially when you're off your face all the time.

The eldest boy was often getting into trouble at school, but He cared so much for his brothers and sisters, from what I saw, he was a better parent than his parents.

I felt really sorry for these kids as they won't get the chances as many others given their circumstances, even if they are as smart (if not smarter)

Taking advantage of a welfare system for yourself for a while to get yourself on track is fine, but bringing up a family entirely on welfare just for your own benefit and having extra kids to get more money for drugs is the ultimate worst case scenario, but this happens much more than you'd realise.

[Darth Mandarb]

I thought this was the land of oppurtunity?

Land of opportunity is great and democracy is great, but I really think that what America (can't speak for the rest of the world) is experiencing now is the dark-side of democracy.Ã,  People expect too much from their so-called 'freedom'.Ã,  They're unwilling to sacrifice ANYthing for the greater good.Ã,  People have become so spoiled by personal freedom that any sense of something bigger than their own well being is lost.Ã,  To me this is very sad.

You sound pretty conservative Darth, especially with that "prove who the father is" part. I don't think that should lose someone their child.

I don't really consider myself conservative (I don't really consider myself much of anything with a lable ... mostly 'cause I don't really think about it.)Ã,  I just tend to say/type what's on my mind at the time.

I wasn't saying that if she can't prove who the father is she should lose the child, she should lose the ability to have more children.Ã,  I do, however, think that if she's on any controlled substance (while pregnent) she should lose the kid.Ã,  Ã, If you can't have the willpower to stop yourself from doing something so obviously harmful to the kid just to satisfy your own needs, you aren't fit to take care of a baby.

But of course this idiot would have an excuse for taking drugs while pregnent.Ã,  That's another huge problem in the world.Ã,  Nobody takes responsibility for their own problems.Ã,  It's always somebody elses fault.

"I lost my job ... so I started doing drugs and spiralled into a world of chaos and crime.Ã,  It's my bosses fault for firing me!!"
- Take responsibility for yourself.Ã,  Stop being lazy.Ã,  Stop whining and make something for yourself.Ã,  Stop blaming others.

"It's the white man keeping me down!!"
- Bullshit.Ã,  Quit whining and get off your lazy fu--ing ass and actually work.

"I didn't know my kid was capable of committing mass murder at school!"
The very fact that you didn't know means you're a bad parent.Ã,  You would have known (in most cases) that something was wrong with your kid if you actually paid attention to him as parents should.

I guess I'm just trying to say that this topic, of bad parents not deserving kids, is just part of a much larger system of problems.Ã,  But I think it might be a major part of all these connected problems and might be the place to start.

[SSH]

The latest advice in the UK is that any alchohol intake while pregnant could be harmful. Since the effect of alchohol  on a person is roughtly proportional to body weight, and depending on stage of development, a baby could have a hundredth of an adults body weight, even half a lager could be equivalent to 100 units... obviously bad news for baby

In rich countries like most of us live in, goverments know that they have to encourage people to have kids. Those kids are going to have to support a rapidly aging population, so the more the better. They will be the ones that pay for our retirement, one way or another. The west has a problem with underpopulation, not overpopulation.

Welfare systems are often designed piecemeal and thus actually encourage people,to explot them and not to seek work. Means-testing just makes the problem worse. Only a universal benefit system can encourage people to start working their way off the bottom, yet support those in genuine need.

Kids who commit crimes or commit suicide are not just a product of their parents upbringing of them. There are so many factors at work, that it is naive to assume that trying to deal with one factor (even assuming that any of the methods suggested for that would work) .

All of us can think of things that our parents did wrong in bringing us up... does that mean that we should all be only children?

Read some books on child development, Darth, and you'll see hundreds of anecdotes of parents doing things that seem like loving behaviour actually encouraging bad behaviour in the kid. ITS NOT SO SIMPLE. But despite all this, most of us grow up and are able to handle life most of the time. I think a loss of human rights is a very big price to pay . A wise man (who had illegitimate children) once said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither libery nor safety."

[TerranRich]

I agree with Darth's comments on abuse of freedom and liberties. You know, there are rights, and then there are responsibilities. You have the right to have a baby whenever and with whomever you want, but you have the responsibilty to raise him or her to the best of your abilities and ensure that he or she is an upstanding citizen. You have the right to welfare, but you have the responsibility to NOT abuse it. Every right comes with a responsbility. The problem with this country (America) is that people abuse their freedoms so much that we have become complacent and lazy and uncaring. It's only when people lose them that they cry and bitch and complain. An example of this is the Patriot Act, where we lost most of our privacy freedoms. I hate that bill and wish it were never passed, but whose to say it wasn't necessary.

And there comes a point where freedoms have to be lost in order to protect security. I learned about that in high school government class, that national security takes precedence over freedom. As for personal security, i.e. seeing children being neglected, I believe their safety and wellbeing takes precendence over the parents' freedom to do drugs (not really a freedom) and abuse welfare. See, that's the thing. People abuse welfare to get and do drugs, because they know that they can.

I've had many ideas for welfare, on restricting it. There should be mandatory drug screenings every week, or month if need be. The recipient(s) MUSt be employed full time and hire a babysitter/daycare center if they need to. There should be a maximum child requirement, any birth or adoption over that number immediately disqualifies them for welfare.

I believe in freedom, but in moderation.

[Kinoko]

Although I totally disagreed with a lot of Darth's suggested requirements, I also completely agree with this:

I thought this was the land of oppurtunity?

Land of opportunity is great and democracy is great, but I really think that what America (can't speak for the rest of the world) is experiencing now is the dark-side of democracy.Ã,  People expect too much from their so-called 'freedom'.Ã,  They're unwilling to sacrifice ANYthing for the greater good.Ã,  People have become so spoiled by personal freedom that any sense of something bigger than their own well being is lost.Ã,  To me this is very sad.

People often ARE spoilt with freedom and it's part of the reason I usually hate almost everything that civil libertarians stand up for. It's like fighting for the right of an ant to walk over a stick, while questions over the rights of the human race to exist go unanswered. That's my stupid way of saying they always seem to fight adamantly for ridiculous rights instead of doing useful things in life.

Individually, people have the right to do whatever the fuck the want, really. I could go around slaughtering people willy-nilly because... I exist and I can. That, however, is a very primitive way to think and we've come farther than that. If any person wants the benefits of living amongst other people in a society, they have responsibilities, and they have to obey rules in order for us all to live well together and for a future.

It's SO true that in Australia, people are encouraged to have children. We have this impending retirement crisis and the government are shitting themselves about it. Their solution is a temporary population explosion that causes long term damage. Devastation, even. Because it won't be THEIR government's problem in the future though, they don't care.

I hate this solution. I think everyone in society needs to look at the larger picture of the Earth and how it's expected to support such an enormous population of humans. It can't go on forever, and it's certainly not coping now. Anyone who thinks otherwise can't see past their front gate.

We just have to accept responsibility for the baby boomers and handle the bad financial situation we'll experience with the retirees as best we can on our own, without giving birth to new people to lighten the load. We have to, excuse my language, take it up the arse for a bit before things can get better. Running away from our problems and making them worse is not the answer.

So, I think that population is at least one of if not the biggest problem we face globally right now. Plenty of people need to keep having kids, of course, but some don't deserve it and they might as well help the population crisis while they're not having kids.

I'm not talking about a parent who accidentally lets their kid scrape a knee, or a parent who has a shoplifting record from the age of 15, or a mother who can't say who the father is. We ALL know there ARE parents out there who just should not have ever gotten pregnant and don't under any circumstances deserve the right to raise a child. Children aren't toys, we all know that. A parent's responsibility is to raise another human being as well as that child needs to be raised. I can't say "To the best of their ability" because some parents' best isn't near good enough.

I, for one, don't think we need any sudden, drastic measures because as great as they sound, I -know- they won't work. We need to change things bit by bit or else there'll be a "revolution" and it'll all just be worse.

I'd LOVE the right to take people's children away from them when I saw them being raised by what I consider to be bad parents. However, what we want to do or what we feel people deserve isn't the goal, it's a world where ALL children are raised well, lead happy, healthy lives and ALL have chances in life. If you want to achieve that as opposed to giving people their just desserts (is that the phrase?), then you can't really want a radical change because it won't ever work.

Education is the key, I believe ^_^ That, and good policies in the meantime to stop completely the extreme cases of bad parenting.

[SSH]

I've had many ideas for welfare, on restricting it.
The recipient(s) MUSt be employed full time and hire a babysitter/daycare center if they need to.

Despite the fact that this may be worse for the children, or may be more expensive than any wage they can earn? Surely part of the point of all this stuff was that we should do what is best for the kids?

There should be a maximum child requirement, any birth or adoption over that number immediately disqualifies them for welfare.

Isn't this kind of unfair to (a) Devout Catholics or other religions that prohibit contraception and thus violating some constitutional amendment or other (b) People who have already had lots of kids, find themselves unexpcetedly out of work through no fault of their own and are trying to restart their lives (c) those extra kids, who are now going to suffer because of your rule? (d) women who have been raped but have a moral objection to abortion (e) when it comes to fathers, would children that you act like a father too (i.e. stepchildren) count? If they did count, does that mean the biological father then doesn't count them? Does a couple get counted as a pair or separately? Wouldn't it discourage adoption, which is generally far better for the kids than care homes?

I'm not talking about a parent who accidentally lets their kid scrape a knee, or a parent who has a shoplifting record from the age of 15, or a mother who can't say who the father is. We ALL know there ARE parents out there who just should not have ever gotten pregnant and don't under any circumstances deserve the right to raise a child. Children aren't toys, we all know that. A parent's responsibility is to raise another human being as well as that child needs to be raised. I can't say "To the best of their ability" because some parents' best isn't near good enough.

I'd LOVE the right to take people's children away from them when I saw them being raised by what I consider to be bad parents. However, what we want to do or what we feel people deserve isn't the goal, it's a world where ALL children are raised well, lead happy, healthy lives and ALL have chances in life.

Here's an important difference from what other people have said: you have to act on how parents HAVE treated their kids, not how they might. Until Minority Report comes reality, we can't judge people in advance of what they might do to their kids. The state does have the right to remove kids from their parents, but its not just a simple choice like that: care homes are crap. Having known some people who have been in them, they are awful places to be, no matter how good and caring the staff might be (and they often are not that even). So, in many cases staying with parents who are being treated for some condition (usually depression) would be much better for the kids.

[TerranRich]

SSH, instead of criticizing my ideas, why not try amending/changing them? We'll add an exception for rape, and forget the whole babysitter idea, it was a bad idea. How about instead, if there are two parents, then at least one must have a full time job. As for already having more than one childre, they can apply for, say, limited welfare. I mean, if you can't limit yourself on how many kids you have and start reproducing like rabbits, and never prepared for it, then why should they get the same welfare treatment as people with one or two kids that need the help? I mean, there is a legitimate welfare need, and there's an abusive "need". It would be up to whomever is in charge of welfare to determine what type of need, through interviews, observation, etc.

Why would it be unfar to devout Catholics, etc.? Just don't have sex if you can't have more children. Devout Catholics should already know this, that with this new limit, they should just restrain themselves. This is why most devout Catholics don't have 25 kids. If the person has a moral objection to abortion, then they can have the kid, but either (1) be eligible for limited welfare, or (2) be disqualified. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. People should learn that.

As for care homes and whatnot, both of my parents had full time jobs. They worked. My grandmother pretty much raised me during the morning and afternoon, and my parents raised me in the evenings. I'm still very close to my parents. It worked out. If the parents don't have some trusted relative, then they should prepare before having children. That's the thing with having a family. People tend to start them without ANY preparation whatsoever. There are things to consider (how to afford it, how to care for the child during work hours). There are workarounds. One parent could work the nightshift if need be. But there are ways to do it.

[Darth Mandarb]

Kids who commit crimes or commit suicide are not just a product of their parents upbringing of them. There are so many factors at work, that it is naive to assume that trying to deal with one factor (even assuming that any of the methods suggested for that would work) .

Read some books on child development, Darth, and you'll see hundreds of anecdotes of parents doing things that seem like loving behaviour actually encouraging bad behaviour in the kid. ITS NOT SO SIMPLE.

I wasn't trying to suggest, in ANY way, that the child committing mass murder at school was the parent's fault.Ã,  More just that the problem was the parent's didn't know that their child was capable of doing it.Ã,  For whatever reason the kid was corrupted into doing something like that, if the parents were good parents they would have noticed that something was wrong.Ã,  Ã, (again, in MOST cases, there's always exceptions.)

I'm going to back out of this discussion ... I can see that my radical views aren't well recieved by some and the last thing I want to do is offend people.Ã,  It's one of the reasons I've stayed out of topics like this in recent months!

If I've offended any of you let me be the first to apologize.

~ darth

[Kinoko]

I'm not talking about a parent who accidentally lets their kid scrape a knee, or a parent who has a shoplifting record from the age of 15, or a mother who can't say who the father is. We ALL know there ARE parents out there who just should not have ever gotten pregnant and don't under any circumstances deserve the right to raise a child. Children aren't toys, we all know that. A parent's responsibility is to raise another human being as well as that child needs to be raised. I can't say "To the best of their ability" because some parents' best isn't near good enough.

I'd LOVE the right to take people's children away from them when I saw them being raised by what I consider to be bad parents. However, what we want to do or what we feel people deserve isn't the goal, it's a world where ALL children are raised well, lead happy, healthy lives and ALL have chances in life.

Here's an important difference from what other people have said: you have to act on how parents HAVE treated their kids, not how they might. Until Minority Report comes reality, we can't judge people in advance of what they might do to their kids. The state does have the right to remove kids from their parents, but its not just a simple choice like that: care homes are crap. Having known some people who have been in them, they are awful places to be, no matter how good and caring the staff might be (and they often are not that even). So, in many cases staying with parents who are being treated for some condition (usually depression) would be much better for the kids.

Agreed in some circumstances, but there ARE circumstances where a persons previous behavious in other areas indicates they definitely would not make good parents, or at least are at great risk of not being a good parents. I totally agree with rapists/murderers/child abusers never being allowed to have children. Not matter how reformed, the risk is too great and when you've done something as bad as that, you lose your rights in this regard for life.

There are some people you can just speak to and know that aren't ready for parenting. They just give off "stupidity" and "irresponsibility", and you -know-. It's a vibe... hard to measure, but in this case it's not that people should be made sterile. Just that I don't think they should have kids until they've grown up and become better people.

[SSH]

SSH, instead of criticizing my ideas, why not try amending/changing them?

Because I don't agree with them one iota?

We'll add an exception for rape

In which case, for the purposes of welfare, they'll just claimed they were raped but don't want to prosecute.

How about instead, if there are two parents, then at least one must have a full time job.

So if the mother looks after the kids and then the father is made redundant through no fault of his own then they dont get any help?

As for already having more than one childre, they can apply for, say, limited welfare. I mean, if you can't limit yourself on how many kids you have and start reproducing like rabbits, and never prepared for it, then why should they get the same welfare treatment as people with one or two kids that need the help?

So the poor newborn baby has to suffer because the parents were silly?

Why would it be unfar to devout Catholics, etc.? Just don't have sex if you can't have more children.

Oh, well thats alright then  :

This is why most devout Catholics don't have 25 kids.

Or maybe due to the fact that "natural" family palnning methods can have a best-case 2% chance per year of conception if done perfectly (which is about the same as the Pill) and even if done badly sometimes gives about 15% per year chance.

If the person has a moral objection to abortion, then they can have the kid, but either (1) be eligible for limited welfare, or (2) be disqualified. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. People should learn that.

So reward people who would murder unborn children? I thoguht you wanted parents who were good parents?

If the parents don't have some trusted relative, then they should prepare before having children.

So you should penalise people whose parents have both died young?

That's the thing with having a family. People tend to start them without ANY preparation whatsoever.

"Tend to"? Which statistical study is this assumption based on? Anyway, doesn't foreplay count? 

One parent could work the nightshift if need be. But there are ways to do it.

That's kind of what my wife and me do at the moment and it means that we nearly never see each other. In a marriage that wasn't so strong, it could destroy the relationship which would be REALLY good for the kids.

Agreed in some circumstances, but there ARE circumstances where a persons previous behavious in other areas indicates they definitely would not make good parents, or at least are at great risk of not being a good parents. I totally agree with rapists/murderers/child abusers never being allowed to have children. Not matter how reformed, the risk is too great and when you've done something as bad as that, you lose your rights in this regard for life.

What if a murdered killed someone out of revenge for them having hurt their child and got away with it (e.g. A Time To Kill movie).. would they then not be allowed to have kids? And what if a conviction was overturned? Medical technology can't guarantee that sterilisations are reversible, and they aren't 100% reliable, either. And that's before we even get into the whole punishment versus reform argument.

There are some people you can just speak to and know that aren't ready for parenting. They just give off "stupidity" and "irresponsibility", and you -know-. It's a vibe... hard to measure, but in this case it's not that people should be made sterile. Just that I don't think they should have kids until they've grown up and become better people.

But since its impossible to measure and oh so very subjective, should it become law anywhere? I argree that there's some pretty irresponsible people around, but you just can't legislate for this kind of thing. And the whole idea stinks of the slippery slope to Eugenics.