• PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    and she sometimes evaluates visits between birth families and children without having met them.

    she can recall only a single instance in which she concluded that the intervenors should not keep the child.

    Thinking that particular couple would be weak adoptive parents, she told me, she simply filed no report.

    I also don't find the concept of "You have to be rich and stable enough to be allowed to reproduce without your child being taken from you" quite as comforting as you seem to phrase it.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      You're not wrong, but I can see it happening. The cost of childcare is growing beyond $10K a year and it's certainly something that can be regulated under Child Protection Laws.

      The current counter is that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects this liberty, incorporating “the right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children.” That doesn't prevent regulation of bringing up children, meaning qualifying factors. These factors could not be based on race, religion, or any other protected status. Financial would likely be the hardest barrier were the mother would have to show that the child would be financially stable. That might mean having a married partner, support of the larger family, or other means of support.

      • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love the move from good ethical moral thinking leading to "the welfare of children should be supported by the state" to the current "no kids if you're poor or we don't think you're good enough to raise them".

        No way that system won't be MASSIVELY ABUSED to discriminate against women and minorities. Nope, that's just a good idea plan all around, 100% no potential issues. Caught having kids without a permit, to the gulag with you! Your kids get given to a nice family who will take good care of them. We could even reversibly sterilise women until they're licensed to breed, on a voluntary basis of course. And if they refuse and they're too poor or don't meet the moral standards of the government (unfit), we can place them in a nice house so any kids they have can be raised by fit parents. In the meantime they should have a job, I mean you can't get out of poverty if you don't work hard. Oh I know maybe they can take care of the house hold, you know cook and clean a bit, good opportunity to learn good moral fiber and potentially become a fit parent. I'm sure the rich household would live to give these women a chance to earn their keep!

        OMG you just invented the Handmaid's Tale and you don't even see it.

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          So your belief is that children should live in extreme poverty which leads to a life of drug use and crime.

          The proposed regulation would allow 99% of couples to have at least two children.

          • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I literally said I think the welfare of children should be supported by the state. A just society takes care of it's children/future.

            As to "the costs" that whole argument is laughable. First child support services are not a significant portion of the budget in any modern country. The biggest slice is education, maybe you want to argue against educating kids too. Then if that's not enough, investing in children and families LITERALLY BRINGS IN MORE MONEY THAN NOT. Healthy well educated kids become far more productive adults that bring in far more taxes than was spent on them.

            Next, contrary to your claim, literally no one is proposing any such "regulation" unless you think your post constitutes a regulation let alone a regulatory framework sufficient to enact such a ridiculous dystopian policy.

            This brings me to the last point, since nothing you have proposed or referred to even remotely approaches "regulation" you have NO basis for your claim that 99% of couples would be able to have at least 2 children.

            In the US alone more than 10% of Americans have used illegal drugs in the last month and a quarter of those (almost 3% of the population, have a drug disorder)

            More than 40% of Americans drink in excess, 5% of Americans have an alcohol use disorder.

            https://www.addictiongroup.org/addiction/statistics/

            The current poverty rate in the US is over 12%

            https://time.com/6320076/american-poverty-levels-state-by-state/

            I don't know what your definition of "too poor" and "unfit" are, but no reasonable definition would allow 99% of Americans to have children.

            If you're not in a modern country that isn't America the numbers may be somewhat better in large part due to the state supporting it's citizens, especially it's children. Which again, is whatI advocate for.