Posted by kozmicstu on Thursday, 14 December 2006 09:10:44

Nope. Bad idea. REALLY bad idea.

How would you enforce this? How would you regulate it? What about couples who are poor and not bright, but love each other and want to have children? I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that richer people are better at raising kids - in fact these are the people who are less likely to spend time with their children, substituting their time and love for expensive toys and such. You don't have to be intelligent to raise a well-balanced child, nor do you have to be rich.

Wow, what a bad idea...

Posted by noise on Thursday, 14 December 2006 11:01:31

Means testing is not the same as affluance testing. Certainly you are correct you don't need to be rich to have children, but being able to afford an upbringing, food and clothing is kind of essential. It has been studied widely and proven that childhood obesity is largely down to either low income, poorly educated families having to shop cheaply leading to a poor diet (Burger and chips from Iceland anyone?).
On a basic personal level i don't know anyone with any degree of inteligence or common sense that would consider a family until they can comfortably afford one. Latest studies put the cost of raising a child from birth to 21st birthday at £180,137 - around 15,000 a year. You don't need to be rich to afford that, but you need to be very comfortable.

Maybe intelligence test was a bad way of approaching the subject...

Perhaps some sort of common sense test?

Ok, that's a little facisous... but you get the point i'm sure. Maybe we should be thinking along the lines of education, maybe along the lines of counciling couples that marry through a Christian church have to go through.

I'm not pretending i have totally thought this through in terms of regulation, although i have often had a few dark ideas having lived in poor areas all my life and seen the results of badly educated, very poor people having children and seeing them grow up. Everything from the mentally ill to drug dealers/addicts to the terminaly stupid that exist in our underclass. Having a group of teenage kids a couple of times a year try and mug you for a mobile phone so they can buy some hash from their mates dad can breed some dark thoughts.

Posted by kozmicstu on Thursday, 14 December 2006 11:30:54

I can say categorically that my daughter, with her first birthday coming at the end of this month, has not cost me anything like £15,000. Not even close. I'd be incredibly surprised if she'd cost a quarter of that. In fact, I'm fairly certain that my entire living costs, for me, my fiancee AND my daughter, come to around that amount. You might say that children get more expensive as they get older, but never do they approach costing that sort of money. That statistic is grossly inflated and is about how much some people SPEND on their children - including trips to Disneyland, PlayStations, and other unnecessaries in the figure. It's NOT how much a child costs. It's like the one about the average wedding costs £14,000. Nobody says you have to spend £14,000 on your wedding - you can do it for about £200, it's just you don't get all the unnecessary bells and whistles. Similarly, you can get baby equipment and clothing second hand and hand-me-down - you don't have to buy it all new. I can't think of a single important baby item we bought first hand for our daughter: her cot came from my parents, her pram from an auntie, her clothes from a recently-born cousin, her high chair from eBay... It's actually fairly easy to bring up a child without spending a fortune.

Back to the point. You are correct that not everybody is adept at raising children. I believe this is a product of the new-fangled strive for 'independence'. Having a child is seen as something you should do independently, without the need for help and support - particularly not from your own parents. In previous years, children were raised by their parents with the support from their grandparents and the help of the local midwife. Parenting was a skill that was passed down generations. No, the focus is on risk-reduction, and teaching parents to be parents by means of classes and pamphlets.

Stopping people from getting pregnant because you've decided they can't raise a child is simply barbaric. Not to mention Naziist. It's simply not our decision to make. Beyond that, forcing people to have abortion breeds malcontent. I'm certain there are better solutions to society's problems than this.

Stu

P.S. I'll grant you that parents with drug addictions etc should not be allowed to continue looking after their children, and possibly be asked to have an abortion or quit their addiction, but those on low incomes can make their own decisions, and those without the practical skills of parenting can be taught them.

Posted by canvas on Thursday, 14 December 2006 15:50:55

You're having a laugh, right? I don't believe for one minute that this post is serious. It's just too ridiculous.

A poor person can, in theory, be a much better parent than a wealthy person.

Regarding human intelligence, let me ask you what you think 'intelligence' is, - how can it be defined and can it be measured? There are all different kinds of intelligence!

I find your post highly offensive - and desperately sad.

Posted by noise on Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:20:41

RE: Kozmicstu

Have you taken into account for example the cost of say, a two bedroom home over a one bedroom home so a chid has a room... the cost of petrol for taking a child to the hospital, school at a later date, if not/just not school thean all extranious transport costs etc? I see your point, the word average can be misleading indeed. But it is also the point. People on "Average" income is around 34000... i know a lot of people that are below that (A few teachers included) and a few people well below that. Bear also in mind not everyone has family that has recently had children with hand me downs to offer. Do try and look at this objectively and not simply based on personal experiance.

Simply stating it is a result of a #new fangled strive for independance# is a lack of thought on the subject. Sounds like another 10-20 years you will be one of those people that use the phrase "Back in my day". Although i do agree that parenting as a skill was passed down and seems to be lacking, however i would say the percentage between that and socio-economic factors on top of an instant gratification/media led society are about the same. To bring your point more up to date, we are probably looking at the next generation being Google Parents.

I'm not sure about Naziist, no one is suggesting race or religion would be part of the equation. I'm not suggesting we gas children either.

I am also curious as to how you would approach someone and ask them to have an abortion. Have you ever actually been on a council estate and spoken at any length to the people breeding liking rabbits without the brains capable of handling the responsibility of bringing a new life into this world, let alone bringing one up to adulthood? I think you would find you would be asked to agressively go procreate with oneself.


RE: The other poster...

Ummmm, yes, a poor person can in theory be a better parent than a wealthy one. We have plenty of stupid rich people. This is not just an idea to throw at poor people.

As for human intelligence, if you read through this thread properly rather than just jumping on the "Post reply" button you would have read that i aknowledged "Intelligence" may be a poorly chosen word upon reflection... although i'm sure the ability to put together an ordered sentence without the word "Fuck" being used as an adjective, or double negatives would be considered an intelligence issue.

People can be tested for all sorts of things, you take a test before you can drive a car, an interview when you apply for a job ... i'm sure people can be tested on capability to parent.



I'm sorry you find this post offensive, it is unfortunate the base problem of many social problems is bad parenting and over population. Perhaps we should just bury our heads in the sand.

Posted by Zoltan on Thursday, 14 December 2006 18:25:14

he he he, you sound like hitler! -remember he wanted to sterilise mentally handicapped people (which might fail to meet your intelligence critera)

reasonable idea on principal though.

Do they not do that (or something similar) in China at the moment?
and does it not lead to lots of dead (abandoned) babies?

Posted by kozmicstu on Thursday, 14 December 2006 19:17:01

noise, to your first paragraph. Yes, I have considered those things. We even took a week-long holiday in Edinburgh last September, and we travel to see our parents at least once a month, so Kayleigh (my daughter) can see her grandparents. That's £55 a month on train fare. £15,000 is a ridiculous sum of money. You say not everyone has hand-me-downs, but you evidently have never been to an Oxfam shop or searched for baby equipment on eBay if you seriously think that it is necessary to buy a baby all new equipment, in ANY circumstance. Many myths are spread about babies, and very few of them are accurate. I can't see a way in which this can be made an objective issue, though. You evidently have extremely strong emotions about the issue, so can hardly accuse me of clouding the issue ("people breeding liking rabbits without the brains capable of handling the responsibility of bringing a new life into this world" is not an objective statement).

To your second paragraph, absolutely true. I'm more than happy to agree that there are more factors involved than just a lack of traditional family support. That doesn't change the fact that we've lost the traditional support network of a family, though. I'm not going to sit down and analyse every single possible problem which affects this issue, because it would be boring. Besides, a report by IDS came out on Monday which does exactly that. I love that you suggest that in 10 years time I'll be saying 'back in my day'. I'll be 31 by then...

What you propose is definitely Naziist. You are suggesting influencing evolution by allowing only the richest or brainiest to reproduce. In this way you hope to create a utopian society where poverty and crime are a thing of the past. That's what Naziism was about. Consider this reductio ad absurdum: Since 'uninteligent' people are not allowed to have children, due to the overcrowding the nation, then surely they are providing nothing to society but redundant bodies - they won't be reproducing, they don't add anything to our society as a whole, thanks to their lack of basic abilities, and they contribute to the overcrowding problem. Therefore, surely we should do away with them. Leave our island, or gain a brain, our slogan should be. No dummies for us.

I wouldn't ask somebody to have an abortion. I know I mentioned it above, but I probably shouldn't have. I was expressing that there are indeed people who don't deserve to be parents, such as drug addicts,and that perhaps a system needs to be put in place to remove their children from the danger that their habits cause them. Part of this might be prenatal counselling where the subject of abortion might be raised, among other possible ways forward.

I disagree with and object to your language on a public forum. I'm not prudish, but you don't actually have to swear to get your point across, and it stands against your argument. You suggest that a sign of intelligence is not using obscenities, and then go ahead and swear anyway. What should we infer from that?

Besides, you still haven't shown how you think this could be implemented - you ask me how I would ask somebody to have an abortion, but then you don't address this case in your own suggestions: What would you do to a woman who became pregnant without a licence? Or a gay couple who desperately wanted to raise a child?

Stu

P.S. canvas... you were just called 'the other poster'... Is my shadow pleasant? :-)

Posted by canvas on Thursday, 14 December 2006 20:16:36

Kozmic :) lol I told you I think you're a top blogger - so I'm happy to remain in your shadow!
I think I have a solution - don't let NOISE breed. haha

Posted by providor on Saturday, 16 December 2006 09:36:39

If someone wants to adopt a child, they and their family and friends have to go through a very detailed and intrusive assessment process including home visits and CRB checks to determine if they are "suitable" parents. Even stable, intelligent, financially secure married couples who already have happy, well cared-for children of their own may fail to satisfy the very strict conditions imposed by the adoption agencies.

Is there not a case to apply a similar assessment process to those who wish to acquire a child by natural procreation?

Discuss.

Posted by coolcatmillie on Saturday, 16 December 2006 17:13:09

With regards to the original bog…I am sooo against that thinking and idea, very bad idea.
However, due to the nature of my job I come in contact with all walks of lfe, with children, and it does upset me to see the state in which some children are being brought up, not because of the lack of financial help but the lack of love, care and devotion to their children, for what reason this is,I do not know…maybe lack of intelagenice, social skills parental skills handed down through generations.
In our area there are parent skill classes running with a reward of high street vouchers when the course is completed, but unfortuanlty these children of these parent are still being left to their own devices, by walking to school by them selves and out on the street until gone 10pm,and some of these are children as young as 5!

Provider, I support your comments on the complex adoption ruling and its intense intrution, and for any one does not understand the process, no stone is left unturned, past history, present lifestyle and future plans,religoion ,fanily history ,past realsionships,out look on life,ideas and how you deal with certain situations, are all taken into account.
Courses have to be taken.
Which I understand has to be implemented for the sake of Childs welfare in adoption circumstance.
But…. there is a chance, as provider mentioned that those who have already brought up children may fail unsuccessful for the adoption process.
So when you look at the bigger picture and the welfare of a child, there are concerns and issues, when families are not being assessed, and slip under the radar, which we have seen to often in press reports when children have been a victims due to this, and I’m afraid to say that in our area one such situation happened, with a family that had been participating in parent skills etc, and child protection, and then even after problems were registered with authorities they continue to have children….

By no means am I for such things as Licence for creating life, but I am for a solution for those who continue to conceive with current problems and issues when children are conserend. It is worth discussion as it is a problem.

I will be very iterensted to see what ideas and possible soultion there are to this issue,as I am sure everyone agrees that a childs welfare is the most important issue...in extereme cases do we say allow them to have more children,to then go into a life of hurt,confusion, different foster homes and care...and only THEN have autorities,technically decide if an adoptive parent is good enough to bring up children.

Provider... I suspect that there will not be many responses to this,as I have tackled a similar situation before,and unfortuanly it has proved to be a complex issue and people have kept away,
But you never know!