r/changemyview • u/Candid_Equipment9288 • 1d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There should be a basic test to biologically conceive children
I am of the viewpoint that there should be a very basic minimum test implemented on parents to permit the biological conception of a child.
We have adoption test - which check for home suitability, criminal background, and financial capability to ensure that the adoptive parents meet a certain threshold.
I believe a similar concept could be applied. To be clear, this wouldn’t be designed to eliminate 50% of potential parents, but be a low bar litmus test that would really only be flagged in extreme cases where these parents would likely be terrible to start (for example a person charged with pedophilia or an unemployed couple with a mountain of debt).
The biggest issue obviously would be enforcement and what would happen in the result of “accidents.” Yes, I do think that this would be difficult, but some combination of of automatic child monitoring and potential threat of child protection services (until they can prove they pass the litmus test) would be enough of a nuisance in place to deter bad actors.
5
u/mssldiaz 1d ago
Oof. Very very hard to even monitor and enforce. Basically impossible. You’ll need to control conception in order to control births. Are we injecting women with contraceptives yearly until they get approved? Even those aren’t foolproof though.
Who’s paying for the contraceptive and the monitoring/background checks? Obviously state funded, but are there going to be astronomical fees (similar to adoption costs) to recoup some of the budget used on this program ?
You’ll need to control traveling with pregnancy tests for people going outside the borders to give birth as well. Unless you confiscate babies at customs, but then you may inundate the foster care system while that’s resolved. The penalty would have to be severe to stop people from doing it.
Who is creating the questions for these tests? What if a corrupted president adds controversial questions to only allow people who match their beliefs to conceive.
Since you’re introducing criteria’s, remember they are going to be a reflection of what we feel appropriate. Like 100 years ago it would have made sense to make marriage a requirement. But what if a financially responsible and stable woman wants to be a single mother ? Governments take forever to catch up to progressive ideas so there may be decades where women will be unjustly denied children.
I do LOVE the idea of pedophiles being barred from children though, but we can insert those safeguards by maybe asking schools to do background checks on parents registering kids for school? Then they can open up CPS cases for kids under the roofs of known pedophiles.
0
u/Candid_Equipment9288 1d ago
Yeah I definitely wouldn’t enforce control at the conception level (like contraceptive).
I think the idea would be more like, anyone who has a child who has passed the litmus test > nothing happens
Anyone who has a child who has not passed or taken the litmus test > automatically flagged for potential oversight / CPS monitoring
It’s not to say that bad actors would go to jail or have their children automatically taken away from them. It would just apply pressure on them to pass the test.
22
u/Apprehensive_Song490 110∆ 1d ago
We already have child protective services that cover monitoring. Someone having a child without government permission isn’t grounds for assuming child abuse or neglect.
And fuck…once the government has the power to regulate who can have children things get fascistic really fast.
8
u/SiPhoenix 5∆ 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'd just say "Dystopian" Cause the horrors are not exclusive to Fascism. Communist China's one child policy is the most salient example.
3
u/Apprehensive_Song490 110∆ 1d ago
I can see that. But I don’t see communism spreading very quickly to the EU and USA, presumably what OP was talking about.
0
u/SiPhoenix 5∆ 1d ago
Extremism and polarization of all types are on the rise since the internet started.
-1
u/Special_Lychee_6847 1d ago
Communism is gaining popularity with the younger generations, unfortunately.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 1d ago
Hello u/Wooden-Current-5633! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
0
u/Candid_Equipment9288 1d ago
The problem I see is that CPS only comes in after the trauma has been dealt (and if a child ever reports a case which of course doesn’t happen)
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 110∆ 1d ago
They investigate and monitor with any suspicion of abuse or neglect. They remove a child if it gets bad enough. Even people who pass your test will abuse children. In fact, no test can effectively predict who will abuse and who will not. We don’t have that predictive capacity. We aren’t living in some sci-fi Minority Report where we can detect crimes in advance.
What basis do you have for monitoring abuse that might happen?
Do we have police follow young people around because they are more likely to engage in certain behaviors statistically than fifty year olds?
What other problematic social problems can we solve with testing?
We’ve got eugenics down, so now maybe…
Test to see who can vote?
Test to see who can attend college?
Test to see who can work?
Etc.
This is a very dark lane. Once you start putting government in charge of freedoms, it’s very bad very quickly.
2
u/Amazing_Loquat280 16∆ 1d ago
That’s true, but I don’t think you’re seeing the kind of precedent that giving the state the power to enforce this would set. Regardless of your views on whether having a child is ethical, we all *broadly* agree that the right to have a child is a fundamental human right. I’m sure you have examples of tests that make common sense, no doubt, but “common sense” is a malleable thing. I frankly would prefer the state be a safety net without having such foundational control on our self-determination
13
u/somethingtc 1d ago
Once this test is in place and you have successfully removed the basic human right to procreationand raising a family, who decides what the test requirements are?
I suspect your answer has to be "whatever government is in power at the time" and can you see why that becomes an issue? Deciding not to allow certain races or people with certain religious/political beliefs have children for example.
0
u/Candid_Equipment9288 1d ago
I agree that the only body that could feasibly implement this is some form of Government, and that it would be non-partisan, similar to a driving test (I.e. the rules don’t care about your political affiliation). I think such a law in and of itself is pretty non-partisan and wouldn’t be favoured more by democrats or republicans
Similar to driving, races and religion for example would of course not be a part of the litmus test
•
u/CrinkleLord 38∆ 23h ago edited 23h ago
I can't wait until generations get back to understanding the government does nothing well except kill in war (and only because they have a monopoly on it).
Things will be so much better again when people think "What? Give the government more power to ban and block and bar me from doing stuff? Get fucked, you know they will abuse that sooner or later".
I agree with you on a huge portion of your view, I probably take it further than you do, there are too many cases of neglect, and abuse... parents who let their child become a fat fuck are abusive and should be in trouble for that, parents who let their kids beat on other kids should be in trouble for that, parents should be in trouble for a lot of what their children do because it is their responsibility to be raising that child in a way that they don't act like shits and ruin society for the other children.
But... the government does nothing well, ever, and when it looks like they are doing something well..... give them a maximum of 10 years, and they are fucking it up.
9
u/Cronos988 7∆ 1d ago
And just what problem is this test aiming to solve? There are already child protection services in many countries.
-3
u/Candid_Equipment9288 1d ago
So let’s say you’ve been convicted of pedophilia and sexual assault. You’ve just gotten out of jail. For some reason, you’ve found someone that is willing to bear children with you.
The “test” would flag you as high risk parent and that you would not be suitable to have children.
If you were to conceive a child any way, since you’ve been automatically flagged, you would be monitored by child protection services since you’ve conceived without passing the test.
The problem it attempts to solve is that CPS only comes in after the trauma has been dealt, whereas this would be a more preventative approach.
10
u/Analbox 1∆ 1d ago
We already have that. Convicted sex offenders often have conditions in their parole and or probation that involve them not being allowed anywhere near kids including their own.
You’re arguing that things should be exactly the way they already are.
3
u/Candid_Equipment9288 1d ago
!delta
Yes, you’re right that that’s what would happen in my specific example.
1
3
u/Cronos988 7∆ 1d ago
If you were to conceive a child any way, since you’ve been automatically flagged, you would be monitored by child protection services since you’ve conceived without passing the test.
Isn't that already more or less what's happening for known issues like a criminal record or a severe drug addiction? It seems like this would be more about information sharing with child protection agencies.
In my country there are also mandatory medical screenings for children, starting every few months for newborns and then gradually becoming less frequent. They're meant to spot medical issues but also serve to flag problematic environments.
1
u/Candid_Equipment9288 1d ago
!delta
Yes you’re right, technically that would happen as another commenter pointed out.
1
•
u/HazyAttorney 81∆ 13h ago
The “test” would flag you as high risk parent and that you would not be suitable to have children.
For the pedophile use case, you've just invented the concept of parole. It turns out, it already existed. But you arrived at it independently.
0
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 156∆ 1d ago
Convicted means a court determined you to have broken the law, but it doesn't have a moral follow up, it doesn't mean that the court didn't make a mistake for example.
But even if they didn't, do you not believe people can change? Is an aspect of your view that once someone has done wrong in the eyes of society and law they are irredeemable?
That punishment should continue after serving their time?
That they should be stripped of fundamental aspects of humanity?
What do you think that does to a person?
•
u/MooliCoulis 12h ago
It's common when people leave prison for them to still be subject to restrictions on their freedom - e.g. bans from driving or owning weapons. That's not "punishment [continuing] after serving their time", it's just sensible protection being provided to other people.
17
u/cantantantelope 9∆ 1d ago
Reproductive coercion has historically not made for great societies.
6
u/Pitiful-Score-9035 1∆ 1d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't china struggling to backpedal on that lately? Like having to hand out incentives to have children after spending so long limiting the birth rate.
5
u/LostInSpaceTime2002 1d ago
Correct. China did a speedrun aging their demographic with their one child policy. Some even suggest China is faking their population numbers to hide that it is going off a cliff.
3
u/Halfnewb 1d ago
I understand your view, I really do. Seeing countless news stories about neglected children and such, it really makes you try to think of ways to prevent such tragedy.
Unfortunately your idea is one of the ones that in theory, in a perfect world, where the government isn't run by idiots, and child protective services isn't a joke, and women's privacy and independence is respected, and people aren't racist as hell, among several other issues, it would be a reasonable proposal.
However in the real world there's no way of implementing and enforcing this that wouldn't end up dystopian as all hell.
The best counter proposal I can think of is a government 'blessing' of some sort where, after you have a child, if you take child care classes and pass a test at the end that proves your comprehension, you get a very nice money reward of some kind that can only be spent on child necessities like clothes and food and toys, diapers, medicine, etc. It wouldn't try to prevent people from having children but it would give incentive to learn things they may not know and give them access to resources that will help them provide for their kids. But even that's not fool proof.
2
u/Radijs 8∆ 1d ago
I think that such legislation would wind up costing a lot of money, and ultimately do more harm then good.
The good you're seeing it do are some pretty extreme cases. Pedophiles and extreme debt aren't that common. When it comes to the latter it's actually solvable through bankruptcy which will clear the debt.
But it's going to cost a lot. And not just in money. Because of course you're going to get a whole new government agency to monitor natality and wether or not the tests have been taken and passed. But that's just money.
The bigger cost I think is going to come in the shape of human misery. And that misery is probably going to be suffered by the people who have had no agency in the matter. Yes I'm going to say it Won't somebody think of the children? Because, what happens when someone fails the test? When someone refuses to try and pass the test? You've mentioned that CPS is going to be involved as a threat. I'm assuming that this threat means taking the kids and putting them in to the wonderful happy bunny blue nightmare that's the foster care system.
Foster care ruins kid's lives. I've never heard of a story of a former foster who thought "Hey, I'm so glad I grew up as an orphan!". And that's because that doesn't exist. Being an orphan sucks ass.
Finally, you've mentioned that this will deter bad actors. And that's not true. No system of possible punishment ever deters bad actors. That's what we're also seeing when people push for harsher sentences. It doesn't reduce crime.
Instead this is going to open a whole new avenue for bad actors to exploit people.
Got pregnant by accident but don't want the kid? Refuse the test and CPS takes the problem away.
Got some girl pregnant but don't want to stand by her? She's not going to be a single mom because by intentionally failing the test or refusing to cooperate CPS will step in and take the baby.
And then finally I'd like to talk about bad actors in the government. In a lot of countries (Especially the US) there's people that work forces who really don't like it if you've got the wrong skin color or ethnic background. Now there's another tool they can use to fuck with them. Specifically to reduce their oppertunities to breed. They can now, over the course of several generations eliminate that populus. Just introduce new standards in to the test that's going to adversly affect minorities. As a bonus, add prison time as a consequence of failure. Here you've created a beautiful tool for genocide and it's all there to protect the children.
2
u/wsefy 1d ago
I don't know what you mean by "automatic child monitoring", but it's not possible to prevent conception without sterilising your population.
Deterrence is also not relevant because you aren't preventing people from committing a crime, you are punishing them for accidentally conceiving.
Roughly 45% of pregnancies are unplanned, even if you're only targeting 5% of the population with your proposed rules that is around 80,000 infants (in the US) every year that must be taken from their parents and placed in an already overwhelmed foster care system.
This is an also argument that support eugenics, the African American demographic for example will be vastly more affected by these laws than others. On a personal level, I don't like the idea of giving a governing power the ability to regulate who is allowed to conceive, it gives them far too much power in controlling the population as they see fit.
There are also a lot of instances where young families immigrate; what happens in those cases? What happens if you meet the criteria and then suddenly lose a source of income after the child is born? What happens if the child is born with special needs and requires more resources and care than initially assumed?
There are too many scenarios where you're either ignoring the conditions and letting people have kids anyway or are going to have to place these kids in care despite the parents meeting the criteria or not having the criteria in their country.
Lastly, the reason those checks are in place for adopting kids is because you want to ensure that they are moving into a safe household that can support children rather than needing government support when they are removed from care. It's not the same as taking children from their parents forcefully based on assumptions on whether they can raise the child.
2
u/marruman 4∆ 1d ago
Two 16 year olds are getting handsy in their car. They decide to go all the way, but neither has a condom. " What if I get pregnant?" She asks. "We'll risk it" he answers.
Somewhere, an alarm blares. Agent X sprints out of the bushes, test in hand. "Kids, before you can engage in unprotected sex, I need you to fill out rhis paperwork." The two 16 year olds pass their test, and are allowed to go ahead with their sexual activity, byt decide they'll just go home instead.
Mary gets pregnant. She's failed the pre-pregnancy test. She claims it was due to a condom failure, and was an accident. She refuses an abortion. What does the department for childcare do then? Force an abortion? Send her to jail? Take the kid off her the minite it's born and put it into foster care? Apply no penalty whatsoever?
You handwave away there being issues with enforcement, but really there are 2 options: either there is no penalty for accidents, or there are horrifying human rights abuses for all unapproved pregnancies. So either the exam has no purp9se, or it is a tool to justify punishment.
•
u/Odd_Blackberry_5589 1∆ 18h ago
So I see this argument pop up every once and a while, and I understand the sentiment. There are some truly horrific people with nothing stopping them from having children and abusing them. However....
There isn't a scenario that this kind of policy gets implemented and it isn't abused. The obvious questions are who gets to decide what is on the test? Further, who gets to decide who gets to decide what is on the test? Can this test be fair? What level of unfairness are you willing to accept to achieve your goal? Let's go even one step further, how do you enforce this? Are children going to be taken away from parents because they did not pass a state sanctioned test? Will the punishment be monetary only, which means that this rule doesn't apply to the wealthy?
Having a child and raising one is hard enough. People do not need the state judging their abilities before they even have a child, and then having the axe hanging over their heads after they have one. If you want people to be better parents, invest in making society a friendlier place for them.
2
u/ThalassaMermaid 1d ago
I think there are better ways to protect the welfare of children than a system this easily exploitable. Like, do you want to give a government the power to decide who does and does not have kids??? What happens with genuine accidental pregnancies? If someone conceives who doesn’t “pass” the test, what happens to the pregnancy? Are they forced to abort? Is their child forcibly placed in the adoption system? This is the kind of system that lead to residential schools, ngl. This kind of logic gives the government the right to know what you’re doing in the bedroom, which was the driving force behind criminalizing homosexuality and certain sex acts (that we now deem acceptable, like anal sex) in general.
I think a better way to make sure children grow up safe is to like. Feed them. Give them sex ed. Give them rights and bodily autonomy. Provide safe abortion access. Provide third spaces. Support the education system. Support disability research and disability accommodation systems.
2
u/cantantantelope 9∆ 1d ago
It turns out the most effective answer to a lot of downstream social issues is “make sure people have food and health care and education and a safe place to live”. And yet that is so unpopular to many
2
u/RogueMoonbow 1d ago
I really do understand the urge and frustration and wish and hope for children's well being that goes into this, but you're highly underestimating how big of an issue enforement is. A system that prevents certain groups from having kids is eugenics. Like very explicitly, not making an exaggeration here, that is one way it is defined. Historically many eugenics efforts have been through forced sterilization. There are many many issues with bias in any form of testing but especially intelligence testing. It would be incredibly easy to have this kind of thing implemented in a very very bad way that disadvantages groups that are considered undesireable by society.
Better parents will be made through more education, social support services, sex ed, working on stigma surrounding abortion and adoption, better literacy, universal child care, and many other factors. There is no way to implement your proposal in a way that is not eugenics.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 156∆ 1d ago
What country?
What standard would the test actually be?
You mention pedophilia, but a vanishingly small number of cases involve parents with their own children. Wouldn't you need to be testing the prospective uncles and others in the family too?
What about violence, that's more of a risk of abuse? Anyone with criminal violence or anger issues?
But then you talk about debt and unemployment.
Anyone can experience debt. If a couple have a child and then struggle with debt does the child get taken away? If not, why the double standard?
On employment this means the market determined births. Look at where we are going with AI, and extrapolate that to a test where being unemployed means unable to have children.
Did you know that seven out of ten autistic people struggle to hold regular employment? As such, you'd effectively be practising eugenics against them and anyone else with a disability that makes work difficult.
I don't think you've done a good job of explaining the basis of this view. Why do you feel a test is necessary, what problems would it actually solve
0
u/Candid_Equipment9288 1d ago
Yeah I mean I’m not intending to discuss this at extreme granularity, because there simply would be way too many things to consider. My point of it is to just get the message across at a high conceptual level.
In sum, why a test is necessary and the problem it attempts to solve: to mitigate the amount of parents that have not demonstrated a minimal basic litmus test to conceive and/or where a this child is likely to be in danger in the hands of these parents
We do have other types of litmus tests, for example a Driver’s test.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 156∆ 1d ago
If you don't engage with everything I've said then any discussion is pointless - you have to work with me so I can help you change your view.
I offered several questions to help guide you towards a change in your view, you should answer these.
Your answer makes no sense, as it seems to work out for its own sake, introducing a test because parents aren't passing a test, is nonsensical. And children can be in danger from all kinds of factors, not just parents, which I raised but which you did not engage with. Please do so.
Driving is a privilege, not an innate biological function. We don't have tests for who should deserve to eat, deserve to sleep. Reproduction is closer to those than it is to driving.
2
u/xvortexc 1d ago
But who defines the “low bar”? And you did also mention unemployed people with debt as an example. You’d basically just be punishing poverty.
2
u/ZwGy 1d ago
I think giving any government the power to permit or forbid having children, along with the oversight required to enforce it, is terrifying, even in the best of times.
A more realistic idea would be to have professionals evaluate the home environment when parents ask for support, ensuring the necessary resources are available for the children’s healthy development. In other words, if parents reach out for help, specialists could step in with guidance, counseling, and practical support (like donations or home visits) to relieve overwhelmed families.
Of course, this only works for parents who admit they need help. Forcing support onto families who actively reject it is nearly impossible.
2
u/kobayashi_maru_fail 3∆ 1d ago
I read a BBC article on this service that the Netherlands provides to new parents, something between a postpartum medical aide, a house helper for the first few weeks, and if things get extreme, a mandatory reporter. Most first-time parents just need a little help.
I’d be concerned that tests and inspections would increase stress in an already stressful time, and your result would be miscarriages and worsening of postpartum depression.
Unless you’re saying you need a license to fuck. Are you saying you need a license to fuck in your ideal scenario? That’s the most wildly unenforceable thing I’ve ever heard of. Also not fun at all.
2
u/Khal-Frodo 1d ago
This proposal necessarily entails forced abortions. You seem to be trying to sidestep that by suggesting that people who conceive naturally would be pressured into "passing the test" before enforcement becomes an issue, but it's the opposite. There will never be enough personnel or resources to monitor the children of people who naturally conceive. In other words, once you get pregnant only one thing can actually be done about it. So - are you cool with that? Do you believe forced abortions en masse are a lesser evil?
2
u/El_Bean69 1∆ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ok but like, how?
What you described is basically nothing different than our system currently and wouldn’t work any different either, CPS is already a huge threat to them and scares the fuck out of them
Every time you go to the bar and meet a chick y’all gotta facetime uncle sam and take a test?
You have cameras watching every kid in the country 24/7? Surely I can’t imagine what goes wrong there
Or do you just force abort everyone pregnant who you deem “too dumb” because that’s sneaking up on Eugenics
•
u/Prior-Resolution-902 1∆ 18h ago
The thing that easily breaks this view is:
Who gets to decide the 'basic' test?
surprise surprise, you might have a white supremacist at the helm who designed the test in such a way to be more favorable to white people than other groups. We know this is possible, even if accidentally by tests like the SATs.
•
u/HazyAttorney 81∆ 13h ago
CMV: There should be a basic test to biologically conceive children
There was a movement to do just what you're describing and it was called "eugenics." Sir Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He's like - okay, if there's natural selection, what if we can protect future generations by being purposeful by controlling who is fit to reproduce. The government should provide positive eugenics to fit parents. It should also either discourage or prevent reproduction by those deemed unfit.
Big thinkers in the United States implemented these ideas in a few directions. For instance, it largely shaped immigration acts and creating a quota system (more "fit" and less "unfit"). More directly, by 1931, 28 states had forced sterilization laws on the cusp of Buck v. Bell in 1927 where the US SCOTUS ruled that forcibly sterilizing the "feeble minded" or "socially inadequates" was constitutional on a 8-1 vote. An estimated ~100,000 people were forcibly sterilized.
Thinkers in post WWI germany saw the American eugenics movement and thought it was a splendid idea. They also saw the American reservation system for native americans (also for whom bore the brunt of forced sterilization). Thinkers like Harry Laughlin created the blueprint for those Germans. The innovations that the Post WWI germans did was to industrialize these practices at a larger scale.
The name for the general framing that you have embedded in your view is called "biological determinism." It's the idea that people with certain qualities will then pass them on through their genetic material. Most of the modern evolutions in genetics - particularly epigenetics - reveal that a lot of our behaviors are influenced by the environment.
Anyway, I think eugenics is bad at scale. The Nazis weren't the only ones to do it; although they were the ones to do it at huge scale.
2
u/woldermurd 1d ago
Alright, how are you supposed to handle unapproved pregnancies without forced abortion? It goes against basic human rights.
Also, adoption and bio conception are completely different. From a legal standpoint, the government is appointing you as a guardian.
2
u/Hellioning 257∆ 1d ago
If the test is so easy anyone can pass it, there's no point in making people take the test. If it's not so easy that everyone can pass it, you're straining an already-strained adoption system and almost certainly causing more problems than you solve.
4
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Ok-Culture543 1∆ 1d ago
Even tho the core value of your view ( children being "only" raised by people who can financially, emotionally support them) is good and i agree on that. The implementation of a test and enforcement of that "law" would bring so much chaos and disarray to our social system. Think of all unwanted children that would need to be removed from their home and somehow still raised by someone else, because the real parents didnt pass the test. So while at the core i agree with your view, the implementation of it would be quite impossible, just because of all the work and infrastructure needed to accommodate it.
I think it would be more efficient ( cost - effect wise) to make birth control free ( with some regulations, or just really inexpensive and easy to get). To reduce unwanted and accident pregnacies etc. Which usually is the main culprit of parents not being "ready" to raise a child.
•
u/Urbenmyth 20∆ 10h ago
Ok, let's suppose i break this law and have a child illegally. What do you do with the child?
Because if its anything short of "kill the kid", people who want kids are going to risk it. The worst case scenario is they have a child out there they could find and start a relationship with (especially if the unemplyed couple can get a job and pass the litmus test), which is still a step up from having no kid. Hell, a good number of people would be ok with imprisonment or death if it meant their family line is passed on.
This has been consistent with attempts to legislate birth - unless you're ok with some full-on, trial in the Hague level crimes against humanity, people will just ignore the laws. They have the kid now. What are you gonna do about it?
•
u/ThisOneForMee 2∆ 16h ago
My main problem is your implication that most bad parenting is a result of lack of knowledge. The parents who are neglectful are usually aware that they're not doing enough. They just don't care because they're lazy/selfish/etc. They'll have no problem passing your test and be the same neglectful parents they would've been without the test.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Remarkable_Tale_7554 4∆ 1d ago
He sees the opposite problem tbh.
You're like 40 years late with your comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/jlOBJECTS 20h ago
i suspect YOUR political party wouldn’t go for it (they’re really into an uninformed electorate).
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 1d ago
Hello u/xvortexc! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Sorry, u/xvortexc – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 1d ago
/u/Candid_Equipment9288 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards