Rant rant ranting - parenting
Oct. 5th, 2005 07:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blueeowynFor assorted reasons, I have been seeing and hearing stories of bad parenting skills and people who really should not have reproduced. Since most of these people (presumably) reproduced legally with regards to the Indiana Bill (more on THAT in the 2nd cut); what is the bill supposed to do. Some phrasing will be stilted to avoid words that will get some people in trouble for reading them. 'You' is used throughout this entry as a generic term, it is NOT aimed at any specific person or persons aside from the multitude of people who do not think things through and allow impatience or whatever to drive their actions to the potential detriment of all.
It should come as no surprise to those who read my LJ that I am somewhat opinionated on the subject of responsibility and I include parenting as a responsiblity. If you are going to be active in an 'intimate' fashion; you have the responsibility to not spread disease OR population without planning. If you are not ACTIVELY hoping to have a child, use protection. If you have regular 'scares' then something is wrong. The female cycle is fairly predictable but there are variations (and stress can do wonders to the whole thing) but the only reason for a real scare is if there is reason to think that the method failed (and I don't consider the so-called rhythm method a valid method unless you have several years of data to draw from and consider things very conservatively). If you have regular problems with your condoms; then maybe you should look into A) changing brands, B) changing your methods of use, C) changing your entry methods (i.e. if you wait until the female is ready, things go MUCH better).
As I have mentioned before, I strongly believe that a child is best raised in a secure stable environment (and I don't mean a barn). This is most likely going to be achieved when the parents are in a commited relationship (whether or not they are married is irrelevant to me) that is long standing and financially secure. I don't think that you have to be rich in order to have a child, but having the monetary resources to feed, clothe, and do necessary medical things (like doctor visits, dental visits, etc.) is a Good Idea. How long is long standing? It will vary from couple to couple but since it has been documented that the honey-moon period of a relationship can be anywhere from 6 months to a year, I tend to think that a year is the MINIMUM time from the formalization of a relationship. For people who get married, I lean toward a full year AFTER the wedding so that the 'settling into the marriage' stuff is all out of the way BEFORE you commence on a pregnancy (which can easily throw a serious monkey wrench into the picture). Which works out to 18 - 24 months from 'dating' to 'starting a family' (assuming a reasonable minimum of 6 - 12 months of dating before formalizing a permanent commitment. For those who don't get married (for whatever reason), the time before commiting to one another should still be the same AND the time to settle into the committed relationship should also be the same (i.e. I hold ALL couples to the same standard regardless of gender, religion, etc.). While I don't have a problem with a single parent per se, I do strongly feel that there should be a second person raising the child so that if something happens to the parent, the child has a relationship to depend on and someone to raise him/her/them.
So, if you are going to have a child, you should be in a committed relationship OR be absolutely secure in your independence (and have a back-up caretaker in the event that something happens to the parent). You should be willing to give up most (if not all) of your free time for the next several years (one of my friends has been out of circulation for 5 or 6 years while the kids (2) were young ... I think the kids are 6 and 3.5). After those 'toddler' years have passed, you will still not have as much free time as before (unless you are willing to neglect your kid(s) which would seem just plain irresponsible). You will have the responsibility to teach the child some important things like: responsibility, self-control, respect, etc.. You will be responsible for seeing that the child learns these things without harming someone else or harming himself/herself.
Stupid Parent I
Parent is in a committed relationshp and wants a child. They adopt a young child (2-3 years old) and bring the child home. The family has an older dog. The toddler (predictably) squeals "Doggie!" and goes running toward the poor pooch and starts slapping it in the face (thinking that they are petting the dog). The dog (predictably) does not react well to this unkown person hitting it on the nose and face and bites the child. Who is at fault here? In my book it is the parental unit(s). Unfortunately, it is the dog who pays the price and is evicted from its home of 8 years. If the child had done the same thing to another person's dog (let's say in that person's yard); like as not the other dog would have been labeled 'vicious' and put down AND the owner would have to pay medical expenses. All because the parent(s) wouldn't think that Snookums needed to be corraled.
Stupid Parent II
I work at the Ren Fest and am usually at the Joust Arena. The group who does the jousting does full combat jousting where they are trying to knock each other off the horses. This means that pieces of lance can (and do) go flying and sometimes make it to the fence at the edge of the arena. When the baston fights are going on, pieces of wood can (and do) go flying into the edge of the fence at the edge of the arena. One of the things that I (and others do) is ask people to stay back from the railing. Usually the ones who are on the rail are kids. One would think that a parent would keep the kid under control and NOT allow him/her to climb on a railing when there are 8000 lbs of horse running around. WRONG. Even after I announce WHY I am keeping the kids away from the railings, the parents just don't care.
Stupid Parent III
Same venue but with out the horses. Why on earth would a parent think it a good idea to allow their child to run down a hill (not the smoothest surface on the planet), jump and try to do a backflip off the top of the railing. Multiple times.
Stupid Parent IV
Giving a child beer at fest and then encouraging the child to go up and do things to performers 'for fun'. I do NOT find it fun to be swatted, kicked, pinched, etc. and I don't know why a parent would think it fun to have their spawn do this.
Stupid Parent V
Not disciplining the child for hitting someone else and then having the gaul to try to get the other kid to apologize for retaliating AND threatening to sue the kids parents. This sort of thing is rediculous. I know of a child (11ish) who wouldn't sit down and shut up in class and when the teacher made him sit down, he threatened to sue the teacher for everything he had. Now, where might he have learned that behavior?
Stupid Parent VI
Smoking around the pregnant wife. Encouraging the pregnant wife to hang out where there is a lot of smoke (thus greatly increasing the chances that the baby will be low birth weight AND increasing its chances of getting cancer). Some of these mental midgets will say "well, it is only second-hand" or "I don't smoke next to her, I only smoke if I am at least 5 feet away" ... well, smoke drifts AND the smell of smoke will get in your hair, your clothes, your breathe, etc. I suspect that some of the toxins will get on your hair, your clothes, your lungs etc. and come out over time. Also, studies have recently shown that if either parent smokes, the chances of the kid developing the habit are something like 18% higher than if neither parent smokes. And for those out there who think "well, I don't smoke in front of the child" ... the kid will find out.
Why in the world do people do things like that? What makes them think that their spawn is worth extra consideration compared to all other spawn out there (which all people are)? Why do people think they have a right to inflict their un-disciplined children on us AND then blame us (as a society, pet owner, driver, whatever) when something happens to Snookums because Snookums never learned to pay attention to rules and common sense (which isn't common at all). Raising a child to be a productive member of society is a HUGE undertaking. It is expensive (esp. if you want the kid to go to college), it is draining emotionally, it requires a lot of planning and thinking (how do you teach the kid that no means no without being too harsh or too lenient? how do you teach the kid to play nicely with other kids w/out anyone getting hurt? how do you teach the kid to check with people before petting their animals? etc.), and it requires a complete lifestyle change. This is NOT to say that you have to give up everything for the child for 18 years, that isn't healthy either. But so many people either do one or the other (and some things do need to be given up for the duration).
Indiana Assisted Reproduction Bill
Up front, I think it needs to be given a lead injection. I think that the mental midget who would make the scum of a sceptic tank look cheerful and desirable needs to have some things explained to him/her. If a doctor is agnostic (or Buddhist or Wiccan or ...) would s/he be allowed to make recommendations regarding the fitness of any potential parents?
Yes, lesbians can get around the law by the 'live active donor' method but that misses the point. Why should it be so much harder for people go have kids who really want them than people who really don't care. To paraphrase a tv character "Rat's Behind, table of one" sums up a frighteningly large percentage of the pregnancies in this country. Sure AFTER the pregnancy has occurred, the idea of whether or not this is a good idea comes up but why not BEFORE the pregnancy? If someone wants a child badly enough to go through the expense and discomfort and time necessry for assisted repro, they should be allowed to have the kid (within reason, I have NO problem with limiting the number of embryo's implanted and/or requiring reduction if the number of successful implants is greater than 3 since it is well documented that above 2 babies in a womb and you start to have developmental issues in the babies and that doesn't do anyone any good).
I do NOT blame the lack of planning on the male (except in such cases where he intimidates the female to the point that she is afraid to insist on protection). I blame it on BOTH partners. If you are going to get warm, TAKE PRECAUTIONS unless you WANT to spend the next 18 years paying for the kids day-care, dental, orthodotial, college, food, clothing, medical, team jerseys, etc..
I wonder if Indiana is planning to remove from custody any children conceived the 'normal' way whose parents don't pass the criteria that they are insisting on for adoption and/or reproductive aids. Also, is a doctor allowed to make suggestions to a couple to increase the chances of conception if they aren't married? What about removing blockages in the fallopian tubes?
It should come as no surprise to those who read my LJ that I am somewhat opinionated on the subject of responsibility and I include parenting as a responsiblity. If you are going to be active in an 'intimate' fashion; you have the responsibility to not spread disease OR population without planning. If you are not ACTIVELY hoping to have a child, use protection. If you have regular 'scares' then something is wrong. The female cycle is fairly predictable but there are variations (and stress can do wonders to the whole thing) but the only reason for a real scare is if there is reason to think that the method failed (and I don't consider the so-called rhythm method a valid method unless you have several years of data to draw from and consider things very conservatively). If you have regular problems with your condoms; then maybe you should look into A) changing brands, B) changing your methods of use, C) changing your entry methods (i.e. if you wait until the female is ready, things go MUCH better).
As I have mentioned before, I strongly believe that a child is best raised in a secure stable environment (and I don't mean a barn). This is most likely going to be achieved when the parents are in a commited relationship (whether or not they are married is irrelevant to me) that is long standing and financially secure. I don't think that you have to be rich in order to have a child, but having the monetary resources to feed, clothe, and do necessary medical things (like doctor visits, dental visits, etc.) is a Good Idea. How long is long standing? It will vary from couple to couple but since it has been documented that the honey-moon period of a relationship can be anywhere from 6 months to a year, I tend to think that a year is the MINIMUM time from the formalization of a relationship. For people who get married, I lean toward a full year AFTER the wedding so that the 'settling into the marriage' stuff is all out of the way BEFORE you commence on a pregnancy (which can easily throw a serious monkey wrench into the picture). Which works out to 18 - 24 months from 'dating' to 'starting a family' (assuming a reasonable minimum of 6 - 12 months of dating before formalizing a permanent commitment. For those who don't get married (for whatever reason), the time before commiting to one another should still be the same AND the time to settle into the committed relationship should also be the same (i.e. I hold ALL couples to the same standard regardless of gender, religion, etc.). While I don't have a problem with a single parent per se, I do strongly feel that there should be a second person raising the child so that if something happens to the parent, the child has a relationship to depend on and someone to raise him/her/them.
So, if you are going to have a child, you should be in a committed relationship OR be absolutely secure in your independence (and have a back-up caretaker in the event that something happens to the parent). You should be willing to give up most (if not all) of your free time for the next several years (one of my friends has been out of circulation for 5 or 6 years while the kids (2) were young ... I think the kids are 6 and 3.5). After those 'toddler' years have passed, you will still not have as much free time as before (unless you are willing to neglect your kid(s) which would seem just plain irresponsible). You will have the responsibility to teach the child some important things like: responsibility, self-control, respect, etc.. You will be responsible for seeing that the child learns these things without harming someone else or harming himself/herself.
Stupid Parent I
Parent is in a committed relationshp and wants a child. They adopt a young child (2-3 years old) and bring the child home. The family has an older dog. The toddler (predictably) squeals "Doggie!" and goes running toward the poor pooch and starts slapping it in the face (thinking that they are petting the dog). The dog (predictably) does not react well to this unkown person hitting it on the nose and face and bites the child. Who is at fault here? In my book it is the parental unit(s). Unfortunately, it is the dog who pays the price and is evicted from its home of 8 years. If the child had done the same thing to another person's dog (let's say in that person's yard); like as not the other dog would have been labeled 'vicious' and put down AND the owner would have to pay medical expenses. All because the parent(s) wouldn't think that Snookums needed to be corraled.
Stupid Parent II
I work at the Ren Fest and am usually at the Joust Arena. The group who does the jousting does full combat jousting where they are trying to knock each other off the horses. This means that pieces of lance can (and do) go flying and sometimes make it to the fence at the edge of the arena. When the baston fights are going on, pieces of wood can (and do) go flying into the edge of the fence at the edge of the arena. One of the things that I (and others do) is ask people to stay back from the railing. Usually the ones who are on the rail are kids. One would think that a parent would keep the kid under control and NOT allow him/her to climb on a railing when there are 8000 lbs of horse running around. WRONG. Even after I announce WHY I am keeping the kids away from the railings, the parents just don't care.
Stupid Parent III
Same venue but with out the horses. Why on earth would a parent think it a good idea to allow their child to run down a hill (not the smoothest surface on the planet), jump and try to do a backflip off the top of the railing. Multiple times.
Stupid Parent IV
Giving a child beer at fest and then encouraging the child to go up and do things to performers 'for fun'. I do NOT find it fun to be swatted, kicked, pinched, etc. and I don't know why a parent would think it fun to have their spawn do this.
Stupid Parent V
Not disciplining the child for hitting someone else and then having the gaul to try to get the other kid to apologize for retaliating AND threatening to sue the kids parents. This sort of thing is rediculous. I know of a child (11ish) who wouldn't sit down and shut up in class and when the teacher made him sit down, he threatened to sue the teacher for everything he had. Now, where might he have learned that behavior?
Stupid Parent VI
Smoking around the pregnant wife. Encouraging the pregnant wife to hang out where there is a lot of smoke (thus greatly increasing the chances that the baby will be low birth weight AND increasing its chances of getting cancer). Some of these mental midgets will say "well, it is only second-hand" or "I don't smoke next to her, I only smoke if I am at least 5 feet away" ... well, smoke drifts AND the smell of smoke will get in your hair, your clothes, your breathe, etc. I suspect that some of the toxins will get on your hair, your clothes, your lungs etc. and come out over time. Also, studies have recently shown that if either parent smokes, the chances of the kid developing the habit are something like 18% higher than if neither parent smokes. And for those out there who think "well, I don't smoke in front of the child" ... the kid will find out.
Why in the world do people do things like that? What makes them think that their spawn is worth extra consideration compared to all other spawn out there (which all people are)? Why do people think they have a right to inflict their un-disciplined children on us AND then blame us (as a society, pet owner, driver, whatever) when something happens to Snookums because Snookums never learned to pay attention to rules and common sense (which isn't common at all). Raising a child to be a productive member of society is a HUGE undertaking. It is expensive (esp. if you want the kid to go to college), it is draining emotionally, it requires a lot of planning and thinking (how do you teach the kid that no means no without being too harsh or too lenient? how do you teach the kid to play nicely with other kids w/out anyone getting hurt? how do you teach the kid to check with people before petting their animals? etc.), and it requires a complete lifestyle change. This is NOT to say that you have to give up everything for the child for 18 years, that isn't healthy either. But so many people either do one or the other (and some things do need to be given up for the duration).
Indiana Assisted Reproduction Bill
Up front, I think it needs to be given a lead injection. I think that the mental midget who would make the scum of a sceptic tank look cheerful and desirable needs to have some things explained to him/her. If a doctor is agnostic (or Buddhist or Wiccan or ...) would s/he be allowed to make recommendations regarding the fitness of any potential parents?
Yes, lesbians can get around the law by the 'live active donor' method but that misses the point. Why should it be so much harder for people go have kids who really want them than people who really don't care. To paraphrase a tv character "Rat's Behind, table of one" sums up a frighteningly large percentage of the pregnancies in this country. Sure AFTER the pregnancy has occurred, the idea of whether or not this is a good idea comes up but why not BEFORE the pregnancy? If someone wants a child badly enough to go through the expense and discomfort and time necessry for assisted repro, they should be allowed to have the kid (within reason, I have NO problem with limiting the number of embryo's implanted and/or requiring reduction if the number of successful implants is greater than 3 since it is well documented that above 2 babies in a womb and you start to have developmental issues in the babies and that doesn't do anyone any good).
I do NOT blame the lack of planning on the male (except in such cases where he intimidates the female to the point that she is afraid to insist on protection). I blame it on BOTH partners. If you are going to get warm, TAKE PRECAUTIONS unless you WANT to spend the next 18 years paying for the kids day-care, dental, orthodotial, college, food, clothing, medical, team jerseys, etc..
I wonder if Indiana is planning to remove from custody any children conceived the 'normal' way whose parents don't pass the criteria that they are insisting on for adoption and/or reproductive aids. Also, is a doctor allowed to make suggestions to a couple to increase the chances of conception if they aren't married? What about removing blockages in the fallopian tubes?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 01:41 am (UTC)IF this goes through the legislature, the only people it would prevent from having children would be people who obviously have the financial means to support a child (you can't get fertility treatments of any kind if you don't have the money to do so), and the willingness to go through extraordinary means to have a child (usually meaning they desperately want the child and are willing to care for the child). While I am not a fan of the single parent family, there are some women out there with the ability to provide not only for themselves but for their nannies. There are lesbian couples who have not only the means to provide for the child, but have the two parent familiy available (plus in many cases the extended family) to be able to do so.
So the only people this would hurt would be middle to upper class women who are either single or lesbian.
If a person is trying to conceive, and needs assistance to do so, for the most part, this is coming from the person's own genetics. So this is a child of their blood they are producing, whether it is in a surrogate mother, or in their own wombs wiht invitro assistance. So if this is their own flesh and blood, then why on earth do they have to take a test to give birth to a child any more than the people who conceive naturally do?
I can see it with adoptions because you are putting a child that has already been generated by someone else (and therefore probably had a fairly traumatic childhood just in leaving their natural mother) into a situation that needs to be a stable one.
But why is a child who is conceived via invitro or via a surrogate any different from one who is conceived naturally? And will someone use this law to cause natural mothers to have to get a licence to produce children in the future? How far will they take it?
This proposed legislature is nothing more than an attempt by "christian" legislators to impose their "morals" on someone else. Note I use both in quotes, because I believe that the truly christian ones are the ones who accept everyone (or try to), and that their version of morals consists of preventing everyone else from having the "happiness" that they do.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 08:03 am (UTC)