So Should There be Regulations on Having Children? Example: Drug Addicts or Pedophiles.
by 
pepperoni008
ANSWERS: 8
Playstation 5 News
Don't Miss It!
All the Latest Announcements
Ad
-
My mother always said almost anybody can birth a child... but it is harder to be a mom. It is nearly impossible to stop those people from conceiving a child, but I suppose if they are really incapable of taking care of the child, child and family services will step in.
-
I've seen this question on other sites. I understand the sentiment behind it but I think it's a bad idea to allow the government to decide who does and who doesn't get to reproduce. There are existing laws on the books to protect children from abuse - when those laws are actually enforced that is.
-
That's really sticky, just as limiting the number of births to cut back on population growth, but I'd vote yes on regulations at this point.
-
This concept was attempted in a manner of speaking already. Many years ago, people with mental disablilities were sterilized. The prinicipal of it make sense, but it's flawed. This idea violates basic human rights, rights that you can't sign away if you tried. People who are so flawed that they should fall under these categories should be locked away in prisons, detox clinics or mental wards, where you can't have children anyway.
-
so does a pro-choice society mean that we only have the choice to kill our babies? or does it mean that the gov't keeps it's hands and noses out of our reproductive business alltogether? 'cause if you're saying it's 'pro-CHOICE' that's supposed to mean freedom to CHOOSE to have a baby right? i mean, the pendulum of choice swings both ways. if not, then you're pro-abortion. and regulating population by law naturally means forced abortions because pregnancies happen regardless of most sterilization attempts, both temporary and 'permanent'. frankly, this is not something that a government of a free state has the authority to meddle with. the number of children a person has and when they go about having those children is and should remain entirely up to them. if you get into regulating who is and who isn't fit to be parents, you'll get a million different answers because there's so many schools of thought out there. it wouldn't be possible to justly regulate something like that.
-
I think so!
-
How about the relatives, neighbours and friends of pedophiles and drug addicts? How about people with low IQs or low incomes? How about psychopaths and sociopaths? How about convicted criminals? How about politicians? How about police officers, firefighters and military members who are more likely than the rest of us to leave behind helpless orphans? Personally, I don't like slippery slopes, and I see this as one of them. I prefer to let existing child protection laws and institutions protect only those who really need it and leave the rest of us alone. Remember that poem about 'First they came for the Jews...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
-
For paedophiles, i reckon so.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC