9 Answers

  1. There are no standards. Illiterate people can raise a person to become a professor or scientist. This was especially the case in the USSR. And in an educated family, a person can grow up who will drop out of school, get drunk, etc. Nothing is perfect in life.

  2. Why do we need such ridiculous standards that cost nothing?))

    There is such a word as “parent exam”.
    That would be a good one.

    What if people took certain courses, received certain medical knowledge, were tested for psychological stability, naturally, they would have certain financial opportunities. and by the way, all this would then be tested.

    This is � – yes, a real test.

    And the guy who served 4 years at the Institute and managed to sit out the top three there-in my opinion, is not some standard or at least something in life approving phenomenon.

    If you want to protect children or give them a better future, then the standards should not be formal, but real. the ones that can be checked.

  3. I would introduce medical standards for this case, including psychiatric ones, i.e. mandatory testing for certain pathologies that are guaranteed to be transmitted to the child – but this case was discredited by the Nazis, so in reality this is hardly possible to implement – such hysteria will rise about “fascism”, which is impossible. But it's a pity-a person without a medical examination is not allowed to participate in a huge list of activities that are much less important and significant for society than childbirth.

    But with the “tower”, a criminal record and work in the forest-nothing from this list says about the right of a person to have children. Only medical contraindications, period.

  4. Yes, what standards are there, everything is much simpler: all potential parents are forcibly appointed as tutors (or nannies) in any kindergarten for a month. Those who do not run away-consider them worthy to have their own children.

  5. No.
    If only for this reason, the current state systems in the world are aimed at serving human life and projecting into the future, and this implies the future population, i.e. children.
    If such restrictions are introduced, then there will be no one to work for, and all today's human activity will become meaningless.

    The coincidence of the qualities listed in the question in a person reveals his ability to plan, long-term assessment of situations. A child for such a person is not just a child, but a potential complex of responsibilities, limitations of pleasure and comfort, moral worries, increased tension, etc. Such a person is usually surrounded by very clever information about the fact that having children is not very necessary. A pathetic attempt to rationalize the birth rate (so as not to die out) is defeated by ethical obscurantists.

    In other words, the more rules there are for people, the fewer people will fall into them, and the abilities of a person who meets such rules are more likely to contribute to a negative attitude towards having children.
    But is this possible? Perhaps – with stages, control, planning, without letting things go by themselves. 80 million, 60 million, 140 million-such a population of countries in Europe has never existed, this is something of an anomaly. Why not assume a decrease in quantity with an increase in quality and saving of earth's resources

  6. Standards �is something �frozen �and unbreakable , and life is �that constantly destroys �any �standards, just get used to one �as immediately � receive evidence �back. There is nothing ” permanent “or frozen “in absolutely nothing . Feel �as �tightrope Walker �catcher and have � to balance �and not to deviate � �one �any direction ,and then � run the risk of falling. Here is something similar with the standards .With trust� in them .

  7. I think it will be enough to oblige material prosperity, the presence of a residence permit and, accordingly, living space-so as not to breed poverty first of all. As with lending – a mandatory permanent source of income must be required.

  8. One of my friends adopted a child for about four years (it was in England). They checked everything that was possible – cases from childhood, injuries, psychological state, predispositions, undoubtedly-income, their housing, etc. And the question arose: why is there not at least some kind of verification, or criteria for conceiving your child? If you think about it, every third or second person has injuries from childhood. Some have small ones, and some have bigger ones. And after all, the most adequate and responsible people will give birth only when they are ready (morally and financially).�

    Children are often the criterion of success in society. Like, look what I've achieved. And although the affluence check is not entirely fair (after all, you can't just allow the rich to have children), some checks need to be established. Or at least compulsory courses for parents, annually, with tests. People would think more that children are not toys, not accessories, but responsibility. And not just for eating-dressing-going-to-school.

  9. There are standards: children's rights. There are mechanisms in place to protect children from harm caused by parents who fail to meet their responsibilities. Having a parent with a higher education, no criminal record, or a permanent place of work does not guarantee that the child will be happy and that their rights will be respected. If a child's rights are violated, they are isolated from such bad parents. Provide an environment where children's rights are not violated. At the same time, parents remain free and children remain free. Negative examples in real life indicate not the absence of rules, but the lack of high-quality implementation of these rules. When people are not informed or indifferent to the rights of children. When professionals (in guardianship, education, medicine, etc.) do not cope well enough with professional tasks.

Leave a Reply