Contraception should be mandatory for both sexes until they have passed a fit for parenting exam: theory and practice.

(154 Posts)
HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:21:47

I'm serious.

Ideal world:

a) everyone undergoes some form of reversible sterilisation at birth
b) only reversed when you can prove yourself financially, mentally, physically and every other ally capable of bringing up children
c) after 2 children, you are sterilised permanently

That way enough money for all - decent pensions, free childcare, better standard of living, no children in poverty, university education paid for, better pay for nurses, decent council houses etc etc

I know some people would like 3 or more kids, but let's also think of the finite resources of our planet. It would also stop irresponsible people having kids with everyone they shag. Admittedly, if you had 2 kids and then formed another relationship, if you've had your quota, you won't be able to have more kids with the new partner. But them's the brakes!

FreudiansSlipper Fri 07-Dec-12 11:43:05

I think also what needs to be added is this should be governed and controlled by some on here. I am often left amazed and in awe of the perfect parenting abilities of some on mn not only do they know what is best for their own children they know what's best for others be it friends or strangers

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:44:11

It's not lighthearted, I am serious.

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:44:53

It could be based on Winnicott's "good-enough" parneting.

How would it be enforced? What's standard of parenting are you looking for? One persons essential is another's optional. What about the people who crumble around examinations?

While I think everyone has thought about this at times I wouldn't want to see anything remotely like it come about.

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:47:39

I would.

What? You think human beings are doing a great job with themselves and the world??

LRDtheFeministDude Fri 07-Dec-12 11:47:42

I don't see how it could work. How could you devise a test that didn't discriminate against people with learning disabilities (I say that because it's difficult to devise a test, btw, not because I mean to imply people with learning disabilities would be naturally worse parents!!).

I think you'd be buggered by the human rights laws, too.

And wouldn't people who come from naice, affluent, non-abusive backgrounds be at a huge advantage, because surely a huge amount of parenting is learned from your parents?

Wouldn't it be better to have mandatory intensive support for everyone who has a baby (impractical I know, esp. looking at the rap HVs get)?

GrrrArghZzzzYaayforall8nights Fri 07-Dec-12 11:48:04

The end result is the same.

There are multiple countries where it is common for women to find out that they have an IUD implanted without their consent (most commonly in Mexico). These women are almost always part of the minority groups. The doctors will admit they do it because they think it's better for there be fewer of those/that they aren't as good parents because they are part of that group.

No one should have that control over another person. No government or medical body or individual or test can be unbiased. Attempted genocide through birth control has already happened and is still happening around the globe as has attempted cultural genocide through forced adopting out by people who think those people can not be good parents.

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:48:45

No, because we also need less people on the planet.

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:49:20

My system wouldn't be like that.

It takes moments on t'internet to find arguments against Winnicott, many of which you see on these boards daily.

LRDtheFeministDude Fri 07-Dec-12 11:49:55

Wouldn't be like what, hully?

ICBINEG Fri 07-Dec-12 11:50:36


my questions:

Do you get that smoking around a child is damaging to their health and not something you have any right to do?

Do you get that making permanent alterations to your childs body to suit your own aesthetic prejudice is a violation of their rights to autonomy over their own body?

Do you get that hitting a child under the age of one who is totally incapable of understanding the link between cause and effect is stupid, potentially damaging to the child and above all else totally pointless?

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:51:15

discriminatory and limited.

All this Oh oh we can't do anything because because means nothing will change. And it's shit right now.

If we agreed on principle, we could figure out the details.

LRDtheFeministDude Fri 07-Dec-12 11:52:03

But it would, hully.

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:52:25

WHY does each individual member of the species have a "right" to reproduce themselves?

Think about it, it's nonsense.

5dcsandallthelittlesantahats Fri 07-Dec-12 11:52:47

what would the test include. In reality parenting is a very simple easy job - you feed a baby and child, change its nappy, take it to school. An average six year old could pass a test on the practical side of parenting.
Most really awful parents are not stupid they could pass a test say all the right things and still go on to be abusers or at the very least shitty human beings.

Proving you can afford a child is very difficult - I have seen posts on mumsnet where people claim to struggle to support a single child on what amounts to three times the average income perhaps they would have the licence removed and the children taken into care?

In theory I see the idea but in reality it would be ridiculous, dangerous and probably lead to a whole host of other oppressive measures.

LRDtheFeministDude Fri 07-Dec-12 11:53:21

It's not 'details', either. Everyone agrees with the principle that, if we could ensure all babies have lovely, 'fit' parents, we should, surely? So the difficulty is the execution. It's not like you need to convince people that it'd be really nice if all parents were good parents.

What's the standard you're looking for?

I'm dyspraxic and have worked with children and disabled adults/elderly before - have proven skills/experience.. I would love to have children one day in the future but would require a level of support physically, e.g. with cooking, feeding, nappy changing, dressing etc (I can't tie laces or do buttons well!) - although practice makes perfect etc. Due to my physical disabilities I'd probably fail a practical assessment but with a bit of support I'd be fine...

fedup - in my scheme, if you scored less on the physical side, we'd provide the assistance you needed because there'd be more money to go around due to less drain on the public coffers. it's only if you failed on ALL tests you would be completely excluded.

Peetle Fri 07-Dec-12 11:55:59

Given how hard it is to adopt it does seem logical to make people jump through hoops before having their own. However, who decides the criteria ? I think the Nazis had a go at this and I'm not sure it's an example we should follow.

When I was about 16 we had a talk at school from the head of a school for "challenging" children, many of whom had been severely abused. That was the first time I was made aware of the horrible things some people do - I don't remember many talks over 30 years later. He was in favour of a child-bearing "permit".

ICBINEG Fri 07-Dec-12 11:56:00

hully the right to reproduce doesn't stem from our animal kingdom routes...where in essence only the "best" parents get to reproduce. Obviously that definition of "best" isn't the same one we would use but still the idea of limiting reproduction to the better parents has solid grounding in the evolutionary world.

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:56:30

You sound sane, you're in.

See? Practicality, thoughtfulness, maturity, sanity...

We all know it when we see it.

And when we don't.

HullyEastergully Fri 07-Dec-12 11:56:51

My last was to fedup

Even if you agree that there's no right to reproduce which I actually kind of agree with there's a right not to take contraception or any kind of medical intervention.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion


Register now