Should aspiring parents have to pass psychological tests before being allowed to have kids?

Question

For example, is it right for people like Britney Spears & K-Fed to become parents when it is so painfully obvious that they can barely take care of themselves?

And for normal Americans the test would be quite easy (like passing your drivers license test at the DMV). They'd only have to take it once & then they could have as many kids as they want. But a test would also weed out people who obviously have no right to have children & keep those reject parents from creating reject kids with their terrible parenting skills.

Answer 1

No!

None of our Presidents would ever be allowed to have children.

Answer 2

Your question, in a basic form, might read "Is becoming a parent a right? or a privilege?"

If it is a right, like the right due process, then it follows that poverty should not be an obstacle to exercise of that right. If the accused can’t afford a lawyer, then We the People will pick up the tab. But if it is a privilege, then by definition it is available only to those who can afford it – like the privilege of flying first class. Airline security would deal handily with anyone misguided enough claim a first class seat without a first class ticket, but how would we handle those who approached parenthood in this way, bringing a new life into being without regard to lack of means?

I’m not going to take sides here, as either position leads to conclusions that would curl your hair. If parenthood is a privilege, then how do we prevent those without the means from wrongly assuming that privilege? If it is a right, then how do we ensure that every citizen is able to exercise that right? But I do believe that until we can come down on one side of the fence or the other on this question we will not have an integrated, coherent policy in such matters as government aid to poor families, access to family planning and abortion, and a whole host of other issues connected with reproduction, child welfare, and parenting.

Answer 3

I think a parenting licence makes a lot more sense than a marriage licence. A lot of people do fine without a marriage licence. Usually when obtaining a marriage licence both parties are not minors, but when dealing with a baby a child is a minor for 18 years. One of the potential parties in this situation is under age, the child.

Answer 4

No I think it is wrong to take a persons rights away in this manner. It is wrong to take a persons child away just because they are stupid according to your perception. And,it is hogwash and subjective liberal science to do this in that manner. Haven't enough kids been taken away from the parents already? Yeah that's right, they use the kids to take away from the parents and now the children rule. Why are kids unruly? Because most of their parents are scared to death to lay down any rules or to discipline at all.

Answer 5

in basic terms because of the fact somebody has funds or is deemed a stable discern does no longer recommend their new child won't become a menance or concern. they'd have a extra suited hazard of popping out frequent yet there is not any assure because of the fact of money. I do think of that funds of a family contributors and understanding they are employed and in a position to financially look after the youngster must be- fantastically for infertility treatments like drugs, IUI or IVF etc... it would have eradicated the irresponsiblity of a undeniable mom of 8 and ones like her. I additionally think of all first time mom's until eventually now they'd go away the wellness facility ought to have some variety of parenting type in the event that they are below a undeniable age- regardless of if it ability delaying discharge by ability of a pair days to do it AND prepare they'd financially help and look after the youngster devoid of having mom or dad pay for it or anticipating tax payers to do it with welfare sort courses. It amazes me as an adoptive mom that my husband and that i had to coach our earnings, prepare employment status, prepare that our homestead became super adequate to accomodate a new child and that we've been extra healthy via back floor tests and social worker visits to our homestead until eventually now our adoption must be finalized for our son and yet any little teenage lady or unwed mom devoid of financial help of their very very own can get pregnant and shove them off on mom and pop to assist or have the tax payers pay for it devoid of any situation because of the fact "that is going to artwork out". something actually desires to alter, yet i do no longer think of that is going to devoid of the government getting in contact. then you definitely've yet another China the place it turns right into a "one new child according to family contributors" regulation and in case you have extra then you definitely pay enormous fines to maintain them. i do no longer prefer that the two.

Answer 6

Perhaps you're right... just think about what a wonderful place the U.S. would be if only George H.W. Bush & Barb were subjected to such a test!

Answer 7

Even if you gave this test to persons trying to have kids, persons who could not pass the test would have kids by accident.

Answer 8

I can't bother to read past the question
you try to tell a 11 to 15 year old with vaginal Itch NO

Answer 9

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws limiting reproduction are unconstitutional.

Answer 10

I think that would definitely be awesome but unfortunately it would also be unenforceable

Great Idea though!