• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Mandatory training/certification to have children?

I despise words like "compulsory", and "mandatory". I grudgingly see how it could be a good idea though, if someone like qwe was responsible for the curriculum. If the moral majority was in charge of lessons, though...yeesh!

So, who gets to decide how to teach parenting?

RE: Think it Over Baby -- I've never seen an infant simulator, but it can't possibly teach anyone what it's like to have a baby. Sure, it screams and shits and demands feeding, but it's not the same. When you have a baby, you love it like you've never loved anything else. You WANT to feed it and cuddle it, and even change its poopie diapers. Protecting and caring for that child become your first priority. Not out of duty, but just because you love that tiny person more than life. You don't fall in love like that with a doll. Not, I think, an effective tool to teach parenting. More of a scare tactic.
 
Last edited:
Pythagoras said:
Okay. If procreative rights are not inalienable, then they can, under various circumstances be taken away from the individual (irrespective of whether this is because that right comes in to conflict with another right), which in essence is the position of those in this thread who think that government can, and should intrude upon procreative rights, and remove them according to some preset values that determine whether one has procreative rights, or not.

This alienability of procreative rights is suffused with arguments not too dissimilar from those of eugenics. I don't think an inalienable right need be reified into some metaphysical object, but rather acts as a gurantee against government encroachment upon one's freedoms.

If rights can be abrogated too easily then the pendulum of dominion/freedom swings too far towards the government, and away from the individual.

PAX
Click to expand...


Yes but the government is already intruding on personal rights of various forms. Rights just mean "choose your tyranny" moreover just because our government (currently) isn't inwardly human rights violators (as we were pre-WWII) doesn't mean they don't violate human rights externally. The only difference between us and ants in the defensive gathering to meet certain goals is we're conscious and have the ability to see larger issues. If there is an international consensus that something needs to be done about "something" infringing on personal rights could mean anything from war to sterilization. I prefer the latter.
 
^^
@Enki

I agree that procreative rights are not absolute, indeed I agree with some of Blattbergs critique of what he calls 'rights talk', and it is not my preferred framework for approaching ethics (though this does not preclude its usefulness when entering into moral discourse.)

Governments can often make as mockery of inalie3nability (eg- when the UK govt. abrogated itself from article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights to allow detention without trial of terror suspects.

It is useful to think in terms of procreative rights when announcing one's objections to eugenics (tout court), or one's support for liberal eugenics uncovering perhaps the lack of verisimilitude between the two types of eugenics.
 
voxmystic said:
RE: Think it Over Baby -- I've never seen an infant simulator, but it can't possibly teach anyone what it's like to have a baby. Sure, it screams and shits and demands feeding, but it's not the same. When you have a baby, you love it like you've never loved anything else. You WANT to feed it and cuddle it, and even change its poopie diapers. Protecting and caring for that child become your first priority. Not out of duty, but just because you love that tiny person more than life. You don't fall in love like that with a doll. Not, I think, an effective tool to teach parenting. More of a scare tactic.
Click to expand...

Hence the name - The 'Think it over' electronic baby is, as you quite rightly put it a scare tactic meant for those too young or blasé to fully appreciate the work and constant commitment and responsibility having a baby entails. Perhaps I didn't explain that point as well as |I might have.
 
^ OK, I get it. This would be geared more toward high school classes, not, as I was invisioning, the sort of mandatory training proposed by the OP for prospective parents.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top