L00b Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) The only way you can prevent those children being born is by forcibly aborting them. Is that what you're recommending?Not here. Or are you suggesting forcible vasectomies for adult men who father children with multiple partners, then neglect them?Tempting as that option is for improving the gene pool a bit (), I'd go for information rather than repression or coercion: once a guy is named as a father at least thrice (same or different partners, doesn't matter), his name goes on an easy-to-access public register (with kid count updated with any future births still naming him as father), which prospective partners can freely cross-check, if they so wish, before engaging in procreative pursuits. A reduction in any state help/benefits made available to the mother if it's the guys n-th kid to an n-th partner (numbers to be debated, reduction proportional to the n-th kid/n-th partner level, e.g. big fat zero after 4 or more kids) might incentivise list consultation and ID-checking. The State could opportunistically ask for companies specialising in baby/child supplies/clothing/food/etc. (basically, all those companies with a marketing interest in perusing the list for targeting adverts/offers) to pay for its setting up and upkeep You will note that this proposal favours female intelligence (in which I am a great believer). Edited March 31, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Even if you interpret the original question as 'should we prevent babies being born to demonstrably feckless parents like Mike Holpin', the answer is simple. Babies are not being born to Mike Holpin, since he is a man. They are being born to his female sexual partners. If those women are also demonstrably incapable of raising those infants themselves, the children will end up in care. The only way you can 'prevent those children being born' is by forcibly aborting them. Is that what you're recommending? Do you mean 'How can we prevent men like Holpin fathering children'?. Are you suggesting forcible vasectomies for adult men who father children with multiple partners, then neglect them? And if the men refuse to be sterilised, who's going to hold them down whikle a doctor does it? Think it through, think it through.... I have no problem with people having as many kids as they want so long as they have the means to support them...this guy and his hareem must have cost the taxpayer millions.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 You will note that this proposal favours female intelligence (in which I am a great believer). Or punishes their ignorance, as the case may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The only possible way I can see this working and being within human rights legislation is to make it voluntary, in which case there needs to be a carrot. For example, would he submit to a reversible vasectomy for a 20% increase in his benefits? Or a 20% increase in tax allowance (if he works). Make the offer generally available, dependent on age limits or something, and some kind of equivalent for women (don't want it to be sexist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 How reliable is the process of reversible sterilisation? ---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 16:34 ---------- I have no problem with people having as many kids as they want so long as they have the means to support them...this guy and his hareem must have cost the taxpayer millions.. That is another issue and has already been covered ad nauseam on other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 We should neuter everyone and make them apply for a licence. I've given this some thought and I think I may have spotted a flaw. Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around? You apply for a licence and if you're not considered suitable you're then neutered. Your way could lead to a drastic fall in the population! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I've given this some thought and I think I may have spotted a flaw. Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around? You apply for a licence and if you're not considered suitable you're then neutered. Your way could lead to a drastic fall in the population! I was thinking that, too...once you've been neutered, what's the chance of being successfully de-neutered?! I should also be interested to see the 'suitability' test. What form would it take? Leaving applicants alone with a small child for a weekend in a house with CCTV in every room, to see how well they cope, would be a bit unethical, really. The truth is that the children make the parents, as well as the other way round. And your own children affect your behaviour very differently from other people's. Sometimes the most unpromising human beings come into their own when they have a small dependant being whom they love and who loves them. Sometimes the most (apparently) savvy adults turn out to be disastrous in their parenting. I don't know how to stop the feckless from reproducing; I suspect nobody has a practical solution which would be acceptable this side of N.Korea. All we can do is make sure the children are protected. They didn't ask to be born. Edited March 31, 2015 by aliceBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 56-year-old Mike Holpin has been dubbed a ‘serial dad’ and ‘Britain’s most feckless father’ for having 40 children by 20 different women, and he doesn’t plan on stopping there. ‘I feel rotten my kids were brought up by someone else. It was my job and I was too drunk to care.’ ‘I’m only 56,’ he says. ‘I want more kids. I’d never stop. In the bible god says go forth and multiply, I’m doing what god wants.’ Do we do enough to stop children being born to parents incapable of caring for them? http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/30/serial-dad-mike-holpin-has-over-40-kids-and-plans-to-have-more-if-a-womans-ugly-just-do-it-doggy-style-5127674/ Everyone is allowed to conceive but it appears that social services doesn't allow everyone to parent their own children, they deem some people unfit to parent so confiscate the children. I find it odd that social services can deem someone unfit to parent but not unfit to conceive, once they are deemed unfit to parent they might as well be sterilized, then the child won't have to suffer the consequences of council care which often leads to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Mind you though..we've not seen the women..maybe they were grateful Indeed. As he so charmingly points out in the article, he won't turn down "ugly" women What a catch, eh girls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Everyone is allowed to conceive but it appears that social services doesn't allow everyone to parent their own children, they deem some people unfit to parent so confiscate the children. I find it odd that social services can deem someone unfit to parent but not unfit to conceive, once they are deemed unfit to parent they might as well be sterilized, then the child won't have to suffer the consequences of council care which often leads to prison. Oh dear. You really don't get it, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now