Adoption criteria as childbearing criteria

[Shiranui117]

I was talking with a coworker the other night while we were closing down shop, and we hit upon a very interesting idea.

If a couple wishes to adopt a child, they must pass numerous criteria including home inspections, background checks, inspection of financial records and interviews. This process is called a homestudy, and it is done to ensure that they are able to provide a stable, supportive home environment for the child.

The idea we had was, what if all couples wishing to have their own children were also required to go through this process? If you want to have a baby, you need to get your background checked, a case worker needs to inspect your home, and interview everyone living in your residence about every aspect of your life to ensure that you are fit to become a parent.

What do you see as being the pros and cons of this idea? Is it too strict? Would it help prevent children being born to abusive or negligent parents?

 

[leibowde84]

I was talking with a coworker the other night while we were closing down shop, and we hit upon a very interesting idea.

If a couple wishes to adopt a child, they must pass numerous criteria including home inspections, background checks, inspection of financial records and interviews. This process is called a homestudy, and it is done to ensure that they are able to provide a stable, supportive home environment for the child.

The idea we had was, what if all couples wishing to have their own children were also required to go through this process? If you want to have a baby, you need to get your background checked, a case worker needs to inspect your home, and interview everyone living in your residence about every aspect of your life to ensure that you are fit to become a parent.

What do you see as being the pros and cons of this idea? Is it too strict? Would it help prevent children being born to abusive or negligent parents?

It would be illegal (unconstitutional). Thus, it would be an impossibility.

 

[Tumah]

I was talking with a coworker the other night while we were closing down shop, and we hit upon a very interesting idea.

If a couple wishes to adopt a child, they must pass numerous criteria including home inspections, background checks, inspection of financial records and interviews. This process is called a homestudy, and it is done to ensure that they are able to provide a stable, supportive home environment for the child.

The idea we had was, what if all couples wishing to have their own children were also required to go through this process? If you want to have a baby, you need to get your background checked, a case worker needs to inspect your home, and interview everyone living in your residence about every aspect of your life to ensure that you are fit to become a parent.

What do you see as being the pros and cons of this idea? Is it too strict? Would it help prevent children being born to abusive or negligent parents?

Its not too hard to prevent the average person from adopting a child in the event they don't pass.
But how will this be enforceable? Exhibit A: High school moms.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's no possible way to set up such a system and enforce it without having some very serious issues and problems.

 

[Polymath257]

I was talking with a coworker the other night while we were closing down shop, and we hit upon a very interesting idea.

If a couple wishes to adopt a child, they must pass numerous criteria including home inspections, background checks, inspection of financial records and interviews. This process is called a homestudy, and it is done to ensure that they are able to provide a stable, supportive home environment for the child.

The idea we had was, what if all couples wishing to have their own children were also required to go through this process? If you want to have a baby, you need to get your background checked, a case worker needs to inspect your home, and interview everyone living in your residence about every aspect of your life to ensure that you are fit to become a parent.

What do you see as being the pros and cons of this idea? Is it too strict? Would it help prevent children being born to abusive or negligent parents?

No, it wouldn't help the problem. The main issue is that it is so easy for someone who is unprepared to be a parent to *become* a parent through a simple sex act. Unless you want to enforce an abortion or adoption, there is nothing to be done short of reversible sterilizations for everyone performed at birth.

 

[Rival]

What do you see as being the pros and cons of this idea? Is it too strict? Would it help prevent children being born to abusive or negligent parents?

The con that stands out most to me is that it wouldn't necessarily spot emotionally or sexually abusive parents. Some people have spent their entire lives refining their act and one can't spot a sexual predator until the assault has occurred. Some abusive parents aren't spotted for years because they have perfected their cover so well. They could be the cleanest, most financially stable, seemingly amazingly ethical people in the village and still be hiding a whole host of unspeakable things.

 

[bobhikes]

I was talking with a coworker the other night while we were closing down shop, and we hit upon a very interesting idea.

If a couple wishes to adopt a child, they must pass numerous criteria including home inspections, background checks, inspection of financial records and interviews. This process is called a homestudy, and it is done to ensure that they are able to provide a stable, supportive home environment for the child.

The idea we had was, what if all couples wishing to have their own children were also required to go through this process? If you want to have a baby, you need to get your background checked, a case worker needs to inspect your home, and interview everyone living in your residence about every aspect of your life to ensure that you are fit to become a parent.

What do you see as being the pros and cons of this idea? Is it too strict? Would it help prevent children being born to abusive or negligent parents?

My con would be what do you do to the accidental pregnancies.

 

[Rival]

My con would be what do you do to the accidental pregnancies.

Possibly allow the pregnancy to go ahead but, rather sadly, take away the child as is sometimes done already.

 

[Quintessence]

As has been mentioned, the problem is enforcement. The nature of adoption allows for a bunch of unnecessary obstacles, which are not present for the alternative.

IMO, there should be no walls to adoption. None. It's bad enough that humans have overpopulated, and worse that those who want the experience of raising a kid have to go through red tape and extra expenses that breeders don't have to bother with. That double standard needs to go to make it easier for humans to make the ethical choice of not breeding but still being able to raise a child.

 

[Curious George]

I was talking with a coworker the other night while we were closing down shop, and we hit upon a very interesting idea.

If a couple wishes to adopt a child, they must pass numerous criteria including home inspections, background checks, inspection of financial records and interviews. This process is called a homestudy, and it is done to ensure that they are able to provide a stable, supportive home environment for the child.

The idea we had was, what if all couples wishing to have their own children were also required to go through this process? If you want to have a baby, you need to get your background checked, a case worker needs to inspect your home, and interview everyone living in your residence about every aspect of your life to ensure that you are fit to become a parent.

What do you see as being the pros and cons of this idea? Is it too strict? Would it help prevent children being born to abusive or negligent parents?

I'm with @leibowde84 on this one. But I think that "unconstitutional" is shorthand for contradicts beliefs which we hold more dear.

 

[columbus]

The idea we had was, what if all couples wishing to have their own children were also required to go through this process? If you want to have a baby, you need to get your background checked, a case worker needs to inspect your home, and interview everyone living in your residence about every aspect of your life to ensure that you are fit to become a parent.

I SO wish this were the tiniest bit feasible.
I think it would go a long way towards fixing a lot of what's wrong with the human family. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of people see willy-nilly irresponsible breeding as a sacred right and duty.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

As has been mentioned, the problem is enforcement. The nature of adoption allows for a bunch of unnecessary obstacles, which are not present for the alternative.

IMO, there should be no walls to adoption. None. It's bad enough that humans have overpopulated, and worse that those who want the experience of raising a kid have to go through red tape and extra expenses that breeders don't have to bother with. That double standard needs to go to make it easier for humans to make the ethical choice of not breeding but still being able to raise a child.

Having seen unfortunate scenario's i respectfully, but ardently, disagree to the notion of no barriers.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

reversible sterilizations for everyone performed at birth.

This would truly be the only way. Having the possibility "cut off" until such time as you were deemed "ready." Then steps would be taken to either reverse the process, or some form of insemination would be performed.

Terribly detached from the experience of "being human" though, and still comes with all the ethical issues of any other proposition in this vein.

 

[illykitty]

Having seen unfortunate scenario's i respectfully, but ardently, disagree to the notion of no barriers.

I agree, and one example is one of my family members. He was in numerous homes and was abused horribly. He still suffers due to the trauma that caused.

 

[Quintessence]

Having seen unfortunate scenario's i respectfully, but ardently, disagree to the notion of no barriers.

I do too. I think there should be significant barriers to all humans breeding. Considering the current political climate, though, nobody is going to enact the restrictions necessary on human breeding. That means there's instead a silly double standard that penalizes non-breeders, who are precisely the people who should not be penalized when a species is overpopulated. As it's more likely for the non-breeder penalty to go away in the current political climate, that's my vote. Remove obstacles for non-breeders, remove the double standard. The few cases of problems can be dealt with under already existing laws that apply just as well to the breeders anyway.

 

[illykitty]

I do too. I think there should be significant barriers to all humans breeding. Considering the current political climate, though, nobody is going to enact the restrictions necessary on human breeding. That means there's instead a silly double standard that penalizes non-breeders, who are precisely the people who should not be penalized when a species is overpopulated. As it's more likely for the non-breeder penalty to go away in the current political climate, that's my vote. Remove obstacles for non-breeders, remove the double standard. The few cases of problems can be dealt with under already existing laws that apply just as well to the breeders anyway.

I know this wasn't a reply to me, but I see where you're coming from. It is unfortunate and it's frustrating that there isn't a way to control population without the obstacles of people protesting since it limits freedom(s). I mean, reproduction is on the decline with most developed countries but I do know people, including in my own family, that have 3 or more children still...

I agree that having such a high population is taxing on the planet, especially when everyone wants comfortable material lives.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm with @leibowde84 on this one. But I think that "unconstitutional" is shorthand for contradicts beliefs which we hold more dear.

I actually just meant illegal and unconstitutional. That is why it is an impossibility.

 

[Curious George]

I actually just meant illegal and unconstitutional. That is why it is an impossibility.

Which is why I figured I would add it, on the off chance that you had meant such an arbitrary reason.

 

[Jesster]

To a certain extent, this sounds good in theory. I'd expect it to fall apart in practice, however. This would most likely just turn parenthood into a privilege of the wealthy.

 

[leibowde84]

Which is why I figured I would add it, on the off chance that you had meant such an arbitrary reason.

Well, the law is about as unarbitrary as it gets. Otoh, values are subjective, so they would be far more arbitrary.