Parents in China Sold Their Children for Video Games

[Strazdas]

Sadly, Right to create and abuse life is considered a human right.

This isn't even the case, though. It doesn't really matter whether it's considered a "right" or not because it would be practically impossible to control. Short of mass sterilization and a totalitarian government I don't see any way to regulate human reproduction. Anything less rigidly enforced and the system would be pointless bureaucracy exclusive for people who follow the rules. Not to mention that this would be a huge drain on tax dollars to set up and enforce, and for what, so that maybe 5% of the population will never be born? Finally, even if you could it's nearly impossible to say whether an unlawful child would have a better chance with the original parents or in foster care.

Yes, we saw the problem of control with Chinas 1 child policy. I do agree that it would be costly to enforce an effective management of children licensing (in my opinion we should only have children of the parent is both intelligent enough to raise them properly (for example not like in this story) and have financial capabilities to raise them (for example so the child wouldnt have to get his clothes at homeless shelter).
Oh, and it would be far more than 5% of population. and in my opinion its worth investing a lot of money to stop overpopulation. of course, largest contributor to that are countries that have multitude of other problems. As far as unlawful children go, im a proponent of mandatory abortion when needed, but thats another can of worms.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Sadly, Right to create and abuse life is considered a human right.

This isn't even the case, though. It doesn't really matter whether it's considered a "right" or not because it would be practically impossible to control. Short of mass sterilization and a totalitarian government I don't see any way to regulate human reproduction. Anything less rigidly enforced and the system would be pointless bureaucracy exclusive for people who follow the rules. Not to mention that this would be a huge drain on tax dollars to set up and enforce, and for what, so that maybe 5% of the population will never be born? Finally, even if you could it's nearly impossible to say whether an unlawful child would have a better chance with the original parents or in foster care.

Yes, we saw the problem of control with Chinas 1 child policy. I do agree that it would be costly to enforce an effective management of children licensing (in my opinion we should only have children of the parent is both intelligent enough to raise them properly (for example not like in this story) and have financial capabilities to raise them (for example so the child wouldnt have to get his clothes at homeless shelter).
Oh, and it would be far more than 5% of population. and in my opinion its worth investing a lot of money to stop overpopulation. of course, largest contributor to that are countries that have multitude of other problems. As far as unlawful children go, im a proponent of mandatory abortion when needed, but thats another can of worms.

I don't think intelligence has much bearing on how well someone could raise a child; someone could be a certified genius and still be a neglectful and uncaring parent or someone could be quite unintelligent and be a loving and nurturing one. It's more about priorities, I think. If a person considers their children as the highest priority they will work a lot harder to make sure their kid turns out right, rather than if they consider, say, video games to be highest.

Allowing people reproduction rights based on their finances also just seems so wrong to me. Partially for reasons I stated above and partially because it seems so classist. To deny someone the ability to have children just because they are the lowest class seems like it's just begging for a future where only the wealthy are allowed to breed.

Finally, aborting unlawful children probably wouldn't work out since once a woman is noticeably pregnant it is past the stage where abortions are allowed. Unless you are suggesting that abortions should be legal at any stage of pregnancy.

 

[Strazdas]

I don't think intelligence has much bearing on how well someone could raise a child; someone could be a certified genius and still be a neglectful and uncaring parent or someone could be quite unintelligent and be a loving and nurturing one. It's more about priorities, I think. If a person considers their children as the highest priority they will work a lot harder to make sure their kid turns out right, rather than if they consider, say, video games to be highest.

Allowing people reproduction rights based on their finances also just seems so wrong to me. Partially for reasons I stated above and partially because it seems so classist. To deny someone the ability to have children just because they are the lowest class seems like it's just begging for a future where only the wealthy are allowed to breed.

Finally, aborting unlawful children probably wouldn't work out since once a woman is noticeably pregnant it is past the stage where abortions are allowed. Unless you are suggesting that abortions should be legal at any stage of pregnancy.

I do, because i dont believe that caring and loving is enough to raise a child. You also have to be smart enough to raise it properly (for example not beating him). You also need to have common sense, such as knowing that sheltering a child no matter how much you love him does not end well. i do udnerstand the need of gradual introduction to the world, im talking about those "18 year old does not know what sex is" sheltered children. Priorities is fine as long as you have intellect to back it up. priorities without logic however turn into extremes.

Its not so much reproduction rights based on finances as anti-child-abuse action. if you cannot afford food, you cant afford to feed your children - dont make them. this is not to make only rich have children, this is to ensure that children have at least basic resources needed to live.

as far as abortion times, like i said thats a whole other can of worms that need its seperate discussion. I do believe that the cut-off time is too early, but i wont expand for reasons of going way off topic.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I do, because i dont believe that caring and loving is enough to raise a child. You also have to be smart enough to raise it properly (for example not beating him). You also need to have common sense, such as knowing that sheltering a child no matter how much you love him does not end well. i do udnerstand the need of gradual introduction to the world, im talking about those "18 year old does not know what sex is" sheltered children. Priorities is fine as long as you have intellect to back it up. priorities without logic however turn into extremes.

Its not so much reproduction rights based on finances as anti-child-abuse action. if you cannot afford food, you cant afford to feed your children - dont make them. this is not to make only rich have children, this is to ensure that children have at least basic resources needed to live.

as far as abortion times, like i said thats a whole other can of worms that need its seperate discussion. I do believe that the cut-off time is too early, but i wont expand for reasons of going way off topic.

Well intelligence and common sense are pretty vague concepts, I suppose my concept of intelligence doesn't overlap too much with child rearing. Example: I wouldn't really consider not beating a child a mark of intelligence just a different placement of personal values.

And I only meant that once you stop people below a certain income from having children it feels like it would open the door for people to start posing more and more restrictions based on income. "Why should they be allowed to have a kid, they only make $50,000 a year, they can't possibly provide for the child!(and so on)" Yeah, it's a slippery slope argument, but it just seems so wrong on that level. I agree that parents should make enough for food and shelter but it's also hard to judge what people will spend their money on; someone could make more than enough to provide for a child but blow it all on gambling, drugs, or video games. Whether someone is fit to raise a child is more the kind of decision that can only be made post birth once it's obvious the child is not getting what they need.

You know, I think that's my main point now: it's way too hard to judge how good a parent someone will be until they are actually a parent. I don't think there is really a test that can be given people to determine whether or not they will raise their children well or not, even simply measuring someone's intelligence doesn't really have a widely accepted method. Perhaps classes to help educate potential parents would be a better solution, these could even be mandatory in high school or something. But then I suppose we would have people upset over the schools teaching child raising values, and that the state shouldn't be dictating how people raise their children, as if there wasn't enough controversy over what schools teach as it is. I guess I can see why most people just throw their hands up and forget about the whole idea actually.

 

[Strazdas]

Well intelligence and common sense are pretty vague concepts, I suppose my concept of intelligence doesn't overlap too much with child rearing. Example: I wouldn't really consider not beating a child a mark of intelligence just a different placement of personal values.

And I only meant that once you stop people below a certain income from having children it feels like it would open the door for people to start posing more and more restrictions based on income. "Why should they be allowed to have a kid, they only make $50,000 a year, they can't possibly provide for the child!(and so on)" Yeah, it's a slippery slope argument, but it just seems so wrong on that level. I agree that parents should make enough for food and shelter but it's also hard to judge what people will spend their money on; someone could make more than enough to provide for a child but blow it all on gambling, drugs, or video games. Whether someone is fit to raise a child is more the kind of decision that can only be made post birth once it's obvious the child is not getting what they need.

You know, I think that's my main point now: it's way too hard to judge how good a parent someone will be until they are actually a parent. I don't think there is really a test that can be given people to determine whether or not they will raise their children well or not, even simply measuring someone's intelligence doesn't really have a widely accepted method. Perhaps classes to help educate potential parents would be a better solution, these could even be mandatory in high school or something. But then I suppose we would have people upset over the schools teaching child raising values, and that the state shouldn't be dictating how people raise their children, as if there wasn't enough controversy over what schools teach as it is. I guess I can see why most people just throw their hands up and forget about the whole idea actually.

As much as i would like to disagree with you on basis of you providing a sliperry slope fallacy, sadly i think slippery slope does reflect reality sometimes. The monetary stop is not so much of being fit to raise child as a safeguard agaisnt child abuse (starving your child is abuse). And i think income is the wrong item to look at here. it does not reflect wealth. as you say someone can be blowing all the money on drugs, and some people with no income can live of wealth they inherited, ect. so we should look at that instead. That, of course, burdens the parents on rpoving they have adequate living conditions, but then if you actually want to have a child you will bother. if you dont you didnt want it that bad to begin with. and unwanted children is bad.

I agree that it is very hard to judge a parent before he is one, which is why i did not suggest a single test but rather want somone way smarter than me to come up with a more adequate measurement.

As far as upset people - fuck them. states SHOULD dictate how people raise thier children. a child is not a toy, you should not have a right to abuse it.

As far as what schools teach contraversy - a bunch of bollocks is what it is. some people going up in arms over crap like biology teacher talking about evolution (btw, some states banned word evolution from schools, go figure). just because you are a dumb parent does not make you a right to dictate education. (i dont mena you personally here).

 

[Drathnoxis]

As much as i would like to disagree with you on basis of you providing a sliperry slope fallacy, sadly i think slippery slope does reflect reality sometimes. The monetary stop is not so much of being fit to raise child as a safeguard agaisnt child abuse (starving your child is abuse). And i think income is the wrong item to look at here. it does not reflect wealth. as you say someone can be blowing all the money on drugs, and some people with no income can live of wealth they inherited, ect. so we should look at that instead. That, of course, burdens the parents on rpoving they have adequate living conditions, but then if you actually want to have a child you will bother. if you dont you didnt want it that bad to begin with. and unwanted children is bad.

I agree that it is very hard to judge a parent before he is one, which is why i did not suggest a single test but rather want somone way smarter than me to come up with a more adequate measurement.

As far as upset people - fuck them. states SHOULD dictate how people raise thier children. a child is not a toy, you should not have a right to abuse it.

As far as what schools teach contraversy - a bunch of bollocks is what it is. some people going up in arms over crap like biology teacher talking about evolution (btw, some states banned word evolution from schools, go figure). just because you are a dumb parent does not make you a right to dictate education. (i dont mena you personally here).

I guess it comes down to that I don't think there is a method to weed out the bad future parents from the good future parents from the good ones and that even if there was, it would be far too costly to make it work and you believe otherwise. Although, if they do ever come up some super awesome person judging technique they should probably use it to weed out the potential mass murdering shooters as well. Anyways, it doesn't really seem that we can go anywhere further with this discussion so I'm going to say that it was a good discussion and leave it at that.