 | published by |  |
Problem Families
Recently, the head of Barnados, Martin Narey said that children from problem families should be taken away as babies for their own safety:
From the Daily Mail Online (which I don't read)
The children of bad parents should be taken away as babies and offered for adoption, the head of a leading charity has said.
Barnardo's chief Martin Narey said it is impossible to fix some families that are 'broken'.
He acknowledged that many in the social work establishment will see his views as 'illiberal heresy'.
He's right when he says that his views will be seen as illiberal heresy.
I feel that there are some families, that yes, live in horrible council estates where the world around them is grim - but have the drive to improve themselves and get away from that kind of environment.
There are others though, that have no intention or desire of bettering themselves. Content with not working, having babies, leaving said kids to do whatever they want.
We put down dogs because its cruel to keep them alive. I believe that Narey's proposal to put kids from problem families up for adoption is a similar necessary evil.
Of course, questions arise over who has the right to decide how the 'proper' family should be. However, a criteria can easily be created with a little common sense.
- Do the parents work?
- Do the parent's have a criminal record? If so, for what offences?
- Is the number of children proportional to the family income?
- Do any of the other children have a criminal record?
- Do any of the other children consistently misbehave in school or fail their exams for reasons possibly attributable to their home environment?
- Are the children aware of any current affairs, do they have any long term goals?
- Is the family home in a good, clean condition?
More questions could be created but the fact of the matter is, whether formally or otherwise, we all know the kinds of families I'm talking about here. Ask the local police officers, ask the school teachers.
If they are an unnecessary burden on society, they can not simply be allowed to continue that way in the name of freedom. I'm not talking about executing the parents here, I'm talking about getting them fucking moving and get parenting their children properly.
Not all families want or care about their children, maybe it is a good idea for babies to be separated from their families.
Alternatively
If children are not to be taken away and there is a reason to believe that the children will become a burden on society then tougher measures need to be taken to ensure the parents do something.
Right now, a parent can live quite easily without any hassle while their child goes out and acts like a hooligan, harassing innocent people, dirupting class at school, causing criminal damage to property. Any teacher will tell you a story when a scummy parent verbally or perhaps even physically abused them for criticising their child in class or at a parent's evening.
These might seem like little misdemeanours but you must remember that all these things add up and continue for the rest of that child's life. Then the behaviours become normalised making it acceptable to others and the problem escalates.
If parents won't be parents, then someone needs to force them.
If a child is consistently unruly in school for example, the parent should be equally punished. Bear in mind, there are 30 other children in the same class, all losing out because a few individuals. Why should they suffer at the hands of the feckless? If a child is consistently unruly, cut benefits to parents, put the parent in a cell for a day, whatever. You'd soon find that most, not all, but most children will get swooped down upon by their parents before you can say 'hooligan' and put straight once you penalise the parents.
Children are products of their environment, no child is 'born bad'. Change the environment, change the child.
Maybe for those children, who lets face it, have no hope in life, should be put into national service...I'm not a massive fan of national service because people usually want it for every child, when it isn't necessary. Perhaps national service could be the machine that turns rubbish into gold...
If that doesn't work, they can be the Epsilons of society.
| |
Posts: 119
Doesn't it prove that that it would be better to make sure only worthwhile people have children...?
Idiocracy shows an exaggerated version of dumb people having tons of kids and the world turning out crap because of it. I'm saying that because of dumb people having tons of kids, neighbourhoods are turning crap. Give it time and countries will follow suit.
Posts: 116
Posts: 43
Post Edited: 25th Sep 2009 (9:59pm)
Posts: 116
We're not really any more intelligent than cavemen. The difference is the wealth of knowledge and culture which we have ingrained into us from birth. A caveman, brought up in today's society and today's standards, would most likely not be that different from your average person on the street.
Posts: 43
Posts: 119
At some point we're going to have to stop reproducing so much, thats a fact.
Now, when that situation is finally (inevitably) brought forward, I'd rather, instead of a blanket policy stating a max of 2 children per couple, that those who only serve to add something to society should be allowed to have children.
It's perhaps heartless to the individuals who have no social conscience but want to have more and more feral children, however its the right choice for the rest of the people on the planet.
Basically, if you don't allow useless people to be born, more useful, peaceful people can be born.
Posts: 43
Posts: 119
though I prefer the proposals to build breathalysers into cars.
the decision to have a child should be a considered, deliberate choice, rather than anything impulsive or accidental
Both true.
I'm not a Republican - I'm economically left and socially centre-right I think.
Posts: 116
I'm definitely not republican. I thought they were all anti-contraception anyway?
As to implants to stop drunk driving, not a bad idea, though I prefer the proposals to build breathalysers into cars.
With regards to someone else having a say in whether you get pregnant, to a point I agree. But what I do believe is that the decision to have a child should be a considered, deliberate choice, rather than anything impulsive or accidental. Maybe set it up so that the implants are removed on request, so long as the person making the request is definite about their decision.
Posts: 43
What if Bush had had a say in whether or not I got preggo? Or if the Thatcher had had a say in your conception?
And as for the infertility implants ozy mentions- one huge problem with that is that with the technology currently available, those implants could only be used in girls, in which case we're right back to square Minus One... The boys run around doin' what they want, but when a girl gets knocked up...
You boys sure you aren't Republicans???
Post Edited: 19th Sep 2009 (6:20am)