DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on December 21, 2006, 12:07:30 AM
-
I've always considered Jolie an extremely smokin' hottie but I've also usually thought of her as getting as close to being mentally handicapped without actually being declared that. (I also always imagined her as having a really bad patchouli/BO smell to her and that's why she and Brad Pitt get on so well because you know he's just stinky.) But I've also had that slightest bit of respect for her going to countries that don't generally have bathtubs or toilets in every living quarter. Lord love her because I"m sure I could never make it.
Her parenting skills have always been in question for me because of the demands of her line of work and her generally bizarre antics and her highly dysfunctional family. But now comes this from Ms. Jolie:
ANGELINA JOLIE insists adoptive parents are more fit to raise a child than biological parents, because their background and personality is thoroughly scrutinised to see if they're suitable for the challenge. The GIRL, INTERRUPTED actress was put through stringent tests before being granted permission to adopt MADDOX, five, and ZAHARA, one. But when she gave birth to baby girl SHILOH NOUVEL earlier this year (06), nobody investigated her suitability as a mother. She says, "It should be hard to be a parent period. I go through many things to adopt. "I'm finger-printed, I'm checked, I go through home studies. I have to prove I'm a decent citizen; a good human being. "That didn't happen to me when I gave birth, so it's interesting that there's no background check when you bring a child into your home in that way."
That is an aspect of adoption vs bearing children comparison that I've never really thought about. People who want to adopt must PROVE they have the ability and are fit to take a child into their homes. And two morons can bump monkeys and no one ever bothers to ask if they are fit? Does that seem right? I don't think so. It's sounds hypocritical to me.
Now please don't misunderstand. I don't mean for a second that adoptive parents shouldn't be investigated first and face a rigorous process. Yes, they very much should. And I would even go further and say that ALL people who seek to become parents should face an equally rigorous process. For if we as a society will not allow someone to give an orphan a home without the owner of that home having met certain standards, how then can we allow someone to create new children with NO standards having been met?
Is this then a question of property rights? If I build a car in my garage out of parts that I smelt the ore that I dug for myself, molded myself, painted it myself, oiled it myself, tuned it myself, before I can take my creation onto the streets of Memphis, I should go get a driver's license or risk ticketing. And just because I have the wherewithal to build the car, that in no way implies that I can also drive the car.
By what reasoning does someone who can create a child have more ability to raise a child than someone who cannot create a child or doesn't want to create another child when there are millions starving the world over? The answer is obvious. None.
As always when we visit this subject, I will inject Keanu Reeves' line from Parenthood that says so much:
You know, Miss Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish. But they´ll let any butt-reamin´ asshole be your father.
-
How many times have the kid police visited Angelina Jolie since she adopted the kids? Seems the scrutiny is prior to possession. Is there an expectation of followup? How about for biologicals? How do you put no knock inspections in place?
-
How many times have the kid police visited Angelina Jolie since she adopted the kids? Seems the scrutiny is prior to possession. Is there an expectation of followup? How about for biologicals? How do you put no knock inspections in place?
When was the last time the drivers license cops did a random check of your license status?
-
So you choose to provide a non reply.
Serious question.
How would this licensing work?
Would you be in favor of wiretaps?
No knock visits?
Subpoenas of your children's medical records?
Scrutiny of your grocery list and your television viewing habits?
Where is the presumption of innocence in all of this?
-
BTW if there is the presumption of a basic right to marry as was established in Loving vs Virginia and which is the basis for challenges to anti gay marriage restrictions, wouldn't it follow that there is also a basic right to reproduce? How would your new laws fare based on these constitutional precedents?
-
Furthermore adoptive children are usually already wards of the state when going through the process of placement.
Embryos and fetus do not have those same rights. Now if you would like to change that, you might have a basis to enact your prequalification laws.
-
How many times have the kid police visited Angelina Jolie since she adopted the kids? Seems the scrutiny is prior to possession. Is there an expectation of followup? How about for biologicals? How do you put no knock inspections in place?
When was the last time the drivers license cops did a random check of your license status?
Two years ago.
-
So you choose to provide a non reply.
Certainly not. My question was serious. No one comes to your house to check and see if you're keeping your driving license up to date. Nor would anyone come 'round checking on you after you've been checked out the first time for childrearing. And you know what you're suggesting is not even remotely what I'm proposing.
Serious question.
How would this licensing work?
Would you be in favor of wiretaps?
No knock visits?
Subpoenas of your children's medical records?
Scrutiny of your grocery list and your television viewing habits?
Where is the presumption of innocence in all of this?
Absolute nonsense.
You know I favor making a child-rearing class part of every high school's required curriculum for graduation. It's that simple.
My question still stands if you'd like to take a stab at it. Why check out adoptive parents and not natural ones?
-
BTW if there is the presumption of a basic right to marry as was established in Loving vs Virginia and which is the basis for challenges to anti gay marriage restrictions, wouldn't it follow that there is also a basic right to reproduce? How would your new laws fare based on these constitutional precedents?
That's for the courts to decide.
The fact remains that crack heads are not fit parents. Meth addicts are not fit parents. The state intervenes when a person is incarcerated with a child present. The convict has to show that they have cleaned up their act.
Would you say that Paris Hilton would make a good mom? Wouldn't it make sense to have her at least take a test on it? How about Michael Jackson? When he dangled that kid over the balcony, didn't the locals have someone run right over there?
Yeah, at the very least, there should be a test of some kind to receive some sort of clearance.
-
Two years ago.
Came by the house then, did they? Kicked the door right in, guns drawn?
-
Two years ago.
Came by the house then, did they? Kicked the door right in, guns drawn?
No, it was a roadblock.
Driveing is a priveledge and not a right , If I am driving in a nonstandard way I can be stopped and loose my lisense , if I refuse to learn the standard way I am not going to get a lisense.
I think that standardiseing childrearing sounds like an interesting idea , lets install valves in everyones Vas Deferens that can't be turned to the "on" position untill the person has passed a battery of tests.
Eugenic concers would be addressed automaticly because no one insuffeciently smart would be reproduceing.
Right now reproduction seems to be reguarded as a right , but converting it to a priveledge is doable , China is kinda doing that.
-
Came by the house then, did they? Kicked the door right in, guns drawn?
Last time I checked, adoptive parents weren't checked out in this way, either.
-
Would you say that Paris Hilton would make a good mom?
If Paris has the right to abort, she should also have the right to deliver. It is her body and her choice. I don't see where the state can't have a compelling interest in one and not the other.
-
I think that standardiseing childrearing sounds like an interesting idea , lets install valves in everyones Vas Deferens that can't be turned to the "on" position untill the person has passed a battery of tests.
Eugenic concers would be addressed automaticly because no one insuffeciently smart would be reproduceing.
Right now reproduction seems to be reguarded as a right , but converting it to a priveledge is doable , China is kinda doing that.
Well, this is in no way what I'm advocating.
What am I advocating, barring a full-scale licensing law, is that schools have as part of their required curriculum for graduation for boys as well as girls is a class in basic care for a child that involves communication, hygeine and nutrition. That can only benefit all of society.
-
hygeine and nutrition.
uhm.
the government can barely feed passable food to kids
keeping them clean is a tall order
It`s next to impossible for me to get my nephews to not wear dirty clothes.
any parent with a backyard should understand what I mean.
especially when they want to make there own swimming pool out of dirt and a waterhose
-
hygeine and nutrition.
uhm.
the government can barely feed passable food to kids
keeping them clean is a tall order
It`s next to impossible for me to get my nephews to not wear dirty clothes.
any parent with a backyard should understand what I mean.
especially when they want to make there own swimming pool out of dirt and a waterhose
Uhm, hey, I didn't say that the government should enforce hygeine and nutrition only teach it. The class would only need to show the students what is nutritious and hygenic and if they fail to use that knowledge, so what?
-
The class would only need to show the students what is nutritious and hygenic and if they fail to use that knowledge, so what?
Then what is the point? Is this one of those we should do this so we can say we tried? In other words is this more about you, than the kids?
-
The class would only need to show the students what is nutritious and hygenic and if they fail to use that knowledge, so what?
Then what is the point? Is this one of those we should do this so we can say we tried? In other words is this more about you, than the kids?
What is the point of teaching kids anything then? Of course, it is about me. It's about everyone! The point is to give people as much opportunity in the form of knowledge to be prepared and learn how to do things properly but this is a free society so we can't FORCE people to do everything that is right in the absence of law. No one is forced to use algrebra after they leave high school. No one is forced to remember that Washington was the first president. The point is that knowledge is power and a headstart on the unpredictability of life in general.
Childcare classes would have the effect of giving kids a peek into the realities of life and would have no end of positive repercussions. A kid would learn what their own parents had to do for them as a child and that would perhaps lead to a greater appreciation of parents by their kids. Seeing how having a child is a 24-7 job can only lead to greater reticence in participating in the act that creates that job. In the event of a childbirth by a person who took the class, that person would then have a leg up in that they know what will be required of them and what tools they will need. And all of these things can only be good for society as a whole. Do you honestly disagree with this?
-
Childcare classes are offered as electives in what used to be called home ec.
-
Childcare classes are offered as electives in what used to be called home ec.
Make them compulsory and we have consensus.
-
Make them compulsory and we have consensus.
No we don't. Who sets the curriculum? Who determines proper childrearing practices. When did the state become in charge of this?
-
Make them compulsory and we have consensus.
No we don't. Who sets the curriculum? Who determines proper childrearing practices. When did the state become in charge of this?
You say the classes are already in place!! You're making this harder than it is. You're trying to make it out like I'm advocating schools telling kids whether they should raise their kids as jews or Baptists when the parents are one of each. I'm advocating teaching kids how to communicate with each other so when problems like this arise in their marriages, they can resolve them without someone getting shot or smacked around.
Is there some ideological problem you have with teaching kids that when a baby shats its diaper, you change it asap? Is that something that goes against your fucking freedom to make your own decisions? I just don't get it. Is it just that you think that a mother should have a choice in whether or not to give her kid diaper rash? Are kids viewed as so much property to you? WTF, dude?
Even if that is the case that you think a mother should have the right to not change a kid's diaper and to actually create diaper rash, then by all means, no one is forcing her into not allowing it to happen by telling her that it WILL happen. Hell, maybe the knowledge will enlighten her to her choices of how to create rashes! Either way, she has choices.
I can really understand your hesitance in having licenses for childbirth. I get that. I realize that is a radical solution no matter how much I believe it is nearly a necessary solution to the rampant childbirth rate and abuse rate. Your unwillingness to go along with that is absolutely respectable and understandable on my end.
What I don't understand is this watered-down version of preparation for childrearing that you yourself have said is already in place. As far as I know, every OB/GYN informs an expecting mother of where she can go and take child-birthing classes. My wife and I went and it reduced our stress over the impending birth date immensely. Knowing what was coming took a lot of the terror out of it by letting us run through it in our heads a few times prior.
Teaching kids in high school that diapers are not one a day items is just a no-brainer to me in light of the FACT that my wife had a client who actually THOUGHT THAT! Now, if this kind of thing is offensive to your ideological sensibilities, then we have a non-starter here. I'm talking basics that have no effect on freedoms of choice. How to give a baby a bath and whether or not you should bathe your baby is not the same as you must never spank your child. It just isn't. And if you think it is, you're wrong.
If you think it is, then you have to be against teaching driver education in school as well.
-
You say the classes are already in place!! You're making this harder than it is.
Not only are they in place, in some districts (like the one I lived in in Minnesota) they're already part of the graduation requirements.
This is the level the decision should be on - at the local level.
-
This is the level the decision should be on - at the local level.
Precisely.
On a side note my sister teaches such a class and has done so for close to 30 years.
-
Childcare classes are offered as electives in what used to be called home ec.
Make them compulsory and we have consensus.
This is the bad attitude that makes people hate Liberalism with a passion.