FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Pregnancy.

Jump to newest
 

By *lem-H-Fandango OP   Man
over a year ago

salisbury

Should there be an IQ test you must pass before you're allowed to pass on your genes?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" Should there be an IQ test you must pass before you're allowed to pass on your genes? "
who sets the iq level

so no

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rincess peachWoman
over a year ago

shits creek


" Should there be an IQ test you must pass before you're allowed to pass on your genes? "

A common sense tests would be wonderful

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *a Fee VerteWoman
over a year ago

Limbo

Unfortunately that wouldn't work as intelligence is no guarantee against being a crap and/or abusive parent

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hoenixandflamesCouple
over a year ago

Stockport

The problem is you get issues where it comes to disabled people...

But I do agree, that having kids is a privilege that too many men and women abuse :-/

I think perhaps a mental health assessment would be better rather than just an IQ test.

End of the day, you can be very intelligent, and abusive...

You can be not very intelligent and highly loving and caring.

I know which I would prefer to see!

Flames

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Evolution seemed to be working well for a few hundred million years... But we know best as always

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Evolution seemed to be working well for a few hundred million years... But we know best as always "

It is a shame we have designed out the survival of the fittest.

It would fix a lot of problems

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There's too many people, anyway. Whether we restrict by IQ or some other means, less peole can't be a bad thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Evolution seemed to be working well for a few hundred million years... But we know best as always "

The hundreds of thousands of children in care would probably disagree

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Drug test is more adequate

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Evolution seemed to be working well for a few hundred million years... But we know best as always

The hundreds of thousands of children in care would probably disagree "

This can be more reflective of a failed system rather than failed parents.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Why just IQ? If you're going to test for the very basis of the continuation if the species then we need more than IQ, surely?

Then what do you do if not not enough people with the requisite IQ are interested or capable of breeding?

My IQ is quite high, but nature and the universe deemed I shouldn't be a mother. Much as I wanted to be perhaps I would have been crap at it and the world was saved me fucking up a little person's life?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield

Have you watched the film Idiocracy, where evolution effectively goes backwards and the world is populated with useless characters, because of the 'wrong' people producing more kids than the intelligent successful ones? In the film most stuff is mechanised / computer controlled, so there are little consequences for stupid actions and ability to do anything.

An extreme example idea, and I don't agree with limiting peoples freedom in that way, but an interesting film.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *avrick15Man
over a year ago

glasgow

I think an arsehole test would be more effective (not in a literal sense)

Criteria; Attitude and common decency towards other human beings

= a nicer more civilised society

By default, better educated people will be in the pool but you are testing beyond that factor.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem is you get issues where it comes to disabled people... "

I think you need to reword that. And maybe think a little harder about how you write your posts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?"

A right? I've always considered it a privilege. Maybe that's part of the problem.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?"

I personally wouldn't say its a right, but that's an debate for a different day.

And we do have a spyglass into the future for population increase...just basic statistics.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 03/07/17 13:26:59]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, but if they cant afford one, they should use a condom.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Evolution seemed to be working well for a few hundred million years... But we know best as always

The hundreds of thousands of children in care would probably disagree

This can be more reflective of a failed system rather than failed parents."

In some cases perhaps, but for many it's due to parents not putting children first...addiction, neglect, abuse. I realised I had completely misread the OP. As far as IQ, then don't think that equates to good parents, but definitely agree that not all people should have children. Namely the ones whose children end up in care as they're not willing to put their children above all else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?

A right? I've always considered it a privilege. Maybe that's part of the problem. "

It's a basic biological imperative. We have reached a point where we can choose but and that makes it a privilege. However, if we start saying basic biology isn't a right where does that end?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ubSirVient-DefinitionCouple
over a year ago

dukinfield


" Should there be an IQ test you must pass before you're allowed to pass on your genes?

A common sense tests would be wonderful "

If you answer yes to any of these questions then you should be sterilised

1, have you ever wore a Lecoste shell suit

2, would you put after market alloys on a Corsa

3, do you shop at Claire's accessories

4, does a night out involve lambrini and 20 bensons

5, does your tramp stamp say sexgodess in Swahili

6, do you watch Jeremy Kyle and relate to the guest

7, would you call your child Courtney

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I think an arsehole test would be more effective (not in a literal sense)

Criteria; Attitude and common decency towards other human beings

= a nicer more civilised society

By default, better educated people will be in the pool but you are testing beyond that factor.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?

A right? I've always considered it a privilege. Maybe that's part of the problem.

It's a basic biological imperative. We have reached a point where we can choose but and that makes it a privilege. However, if we start saying basic biology isn't a right where does that end?

"

The point is, it's not an either / or. There are a myriad of things that could be done to help people make better choices about whether to have children or not, and to support them in being better parents. And that is where we should start, rather than a ban on people someone, somewhere, deems not good enough to have babies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?"

It may well be a human right but so is the ability to be able to financially support your off spring without expecting other to do so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?

It may well be a human right but so is the ability to be able to financially support your off spring without expecting other to do so."

In an ideal world we'd all have a healthy child, be able to support it well into adulthood and provide it all the care and nurture it needs. The world however isn't ideal and situations and people change.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Have you watched the film Idiocracy, where evolution effectively goes backwards and the world is populated with useless characters, because of the 'wrong' people producing more kids than the intelligent successful ones? In the film most stuff is mechanised / computer controlled, so there are little consequences for stupid actions and ability to do anything.

An extreme example idea, and I don't agree with limiting peoples freedom in that way, but an interesting film."

Interesting documentary

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *gnitemybodyWoman
over a year ago

Onestepoutofthedoor

Hmmm perhaps that's why I couldn't have my own

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *gnitemybodyWoman
over a year ago

Onestepoutofthedoor

I presume this came after Sarah's thread...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Unfortunately that wouldn't work as intelligence is no guarantee against being a crap and/or abusive parent "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" Should there be an IQ test you must pass before you're allowed to pass on your genes?

A common sense tests would be wonderful

If you answer yes to any of these questions then you should be sterilised

7, would you call your child Courtney "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?

It may well be a human right but so is the ability to be able to financially support your off spring without expecting other to do so.

In an ideal world we'd all have a healthy child, be able to support it well into adulthood and provide it all the care and nurture it needs. The world however isn't ideal and situations and people change."

Fecklessly having children you know you can't afford in the first place is what my point was.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" Should there be an IQ test you must pass before you're allowed to pass on your genes? "

No, else my two little cherubs of joy would never have been born

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" Should there be an IQ test you must pass before you're allowed to pass on your genes?

A common sense tests would be wonderful

If you answer yes to any of these questions then you should be sterilised

1, have you ever wore a Lecoste shell suit

2, would you put after market alloys on a Corsa

3, do you shop at Claire's accessories

4, does a night out involve lambrini and 20 bensons

5, does your tramp stamp say sexgodess in Swahili

6, do you watch Jeremy Kyle and relate to the guest

7, would you call your child Courtney

Errr whoops on number 7

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

[Removed by poster at 03/07/17 18:38:16]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

no there shouldn't. because some people with high iq aren't even capable of looking after kids.

there should be tests though on who can and can't have kids. thing like how much do you do for your community, for the planet, how selfish are you, but this is dependent on the aims being that we create a society that is unselfish.

as for having a family being a human right, well yes it is and that should mean that nobody has a right to be denied a family. there's also a right to bring up your family in peace.

yet SS will still have criteria for prospective adoptive parents. and will interfere in families who they think are not doing a good job. so rights mean jack shit really.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Having a child is a human right.

Without a spyglass to look into the future, who is anyone to deny someone their human right?

And if that human right was prevented, what then? What other human rights does that leave open to deny?

A right? I've always considered it a privilege. Maybe that's part of the problem. "

Yes, by law

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"no there shouldn't. because some people with high iq aren't even capable of looking after kids.

there should be tests though on who can and can't have kids. thing like how much do you do for your community, for the planet, how selfish are you, but this is dependent on the aims being that we create a society that is unselfish.

as for having a family being a human right, well yes it is and that should mean that nobody has a right to be denied a family. there's also a right to bring up your family in peace.

yet SS will still have criteria for prospective adoptive parents. and will interfere in families who they think are not doing a good job. so rights mean jack shit really."

There have been plenty of children born of poor, incapable, innaprorpiate parents and parenting, yet have gone on to lead valuable lives that have contributed to humanity, do we deny them and possible future generations life, because their parents didn't pass a test?

Don't get me wrong, I work with plenty of damaged children that are a product of poor parenting, so I think there's plenty of people who shouldn't have children, but I question the morale basis in denying anyone to have children and deny life.

I think the e,phases is more on society and government to ensure better protection and support of children born of poor parenting, rather than stopping people excersizing one of their basic human rights to have a child.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"no there shouldn't. because some people with high iq aren't even capable of looking after kids.

there should be tests though on who can and can't have kids. thing like how much do you do for your community, for the planet, how selfish are you, but this is dependent on the aims being that we create a society that is unselfish.

as for having a family being a human right, well yes it is and that should mean that nobody has a right to be denied a family. there's also a right to bring up your family in peace.

yet SS will still have criteria for prospective adoptive parents. and will interfere in families who they think are not doing a good job. so rights mean jack shit really."

As for social services interfering, their "interfering" has saved hundreds of thousands of children from abuse, neglect and death.

That's rarely heard of, only the mistakes and wrong they do gets heard of, but of course there is human error, policies and procedures that are not fit for purpose, and poor practice, resulting in the tragic incidents such as the like of baby P, Victoria Climbie and many more, it's not perfect and unlikely to ever be so, but it certainly does an awful lot of good than worse for children and families.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•


"no there shouldn't. because some people with high iq aren't even capable of looking after kids.

there should be tests though on who can and can't have kids. thing like how much do you do for your community, for the planet, how selfish are you, but this is dependent on the aims being that we create a society that is unselfish.

as for having a family being a human right, well yes it is and that should mean that nobody has a right to be denied a family. there's also a right to bring up your family in peace.

yet SS will still have criteria for prospective adoptive parents. and will interfere in families who they think are not doing a good job. so rights mean jack shit really.

There have been plenty of children born of poor, incapable, innaprorpiate parents and parenting, yet have gone on to lead valuable lives that have contributed to humanity, do we deny them and possible future generations life, because their parents didn't pass a test?

Don't get me wrong, I work with plenty of damaged children that are a product of poor parenting, so I think there's plenty of people who shouldn't have children, but I question the morale basis in denying anyone to have children and deny life.

I think the e,phases is more on society and government to ensure better protection and support of children born of poor parenting, rather than stopping people excersizing one of their basic human rights to have a child. "

doubt any society would be able to agree a criteria for who shouldn't have children anyway, so we're basically discussing opinion. and i reckon most societies will always say the poor cannot if we were deciding -they're already the bottom of the barrel when it comes to rights anyway, might as well stomp them right down further.

we have an over abundance now of humans. something/someone needs to be stopped. i do think it'd be interesting to see who's right to bear children would be gone. i can see already who is being stopped or being forced into having children and who is not.

i also think once genetics advances even more than it has already, and we can predict in factors based on what/who will be born, it is gonna happen whether we want it to or not.

do i think cutting the risk of bearing shit humans and potentially getting rid of some contributors who are decent to save what is left of humanity will benefit society and the planet overall? yes.

you can manipulate whole societies to do what you want anyway, so why not just get rid of the ones who you can't and stop them breeding? pretty sure they've been trying to for a long time now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•


"no there shouldn't. because some people with high iq aren't even capable of looking after kids.

there should be tests though on who can and can't have kids. thing like how much do you do for your community, for the planet, how selfish are you, but this is dependent on the aims being that we create a society that is unselfish.

as for having a family being a human right, well yes it is and that should mean that nobody has a right to be denied a family. there's also a right to bring up your family in peace.

yet SS will still have criteria for prospective adoptive parents. and will interfere in families who they think are not doing a good job. so rights mean jack shit really.

As for social services interfering, their "interfering" has saved hundreds of thousands of children from abuse, neglect and death.

That's rarely heard of, only the mistakes and wrong they do gets heard of, but of course there is human error, policies and procedures that are not fit for purpose, and poor practice, resulting in the tragic incidents such as the like of baby P, Victoria Climbie and many more, it's not perfect and unlikely to ever be so, but it certainly does an awful lot of good than worse for children and families. "

it's still interfering though and breaches the right to a peaceful family life, so human rights are basically a bunch of shit. we know what we're entitled to for sure doesn't mean we'll get them. the homeless wouldn't exist either, neither would the starving, yet they do. their human rights have been breached, where is the protection for them?

and that's just it, rights are not laws. they just tell us what we, as people who live in civilised societies, are entitled to. nobody gets prosecuted when they are breached.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

This thread stirred up a lot of memories I have ignored for some time.

I was 'tested' when I applied for artificial insemination. Nothing as crude as an IQ test but four mandatory sessions on why I wanted to bear a child and what I could offer a child.

At the end of the process I decided to never try again, either through AID or through sex.

I looked at adoption and decided I didn't have enough to offer what would be a troubled young person.

Maybe we need to include more in PSHE about parenting and not just contraception.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" Should there be an IQ test you must pass before you're allowed to pass on your genes? "
no you can have my old jeans

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *gnitemybodyWoman
over a year ago

Onestepoutofthedoor


"This thread stirred up a lot of memories I have ignored for some time.

I was 'tested' when I applied for artificial insemination. Nothing as crude as an IQ test but four mandatory sessions on why I wanted to bear a child and what I could offer a child.

At the end of the process I decided to never try again, either through AID or through sex.

I looked at adoption and decided I didn't have enough to offer what would be a troubled young person.

Maybe we need to include more in PSHE about parenting and not just contraception.

"

Adoption can certainly be a roller-coaster of emotions. It took me a long time to decide adoption was for me and I also resented the fact it was in someone's hand as to whether they thought myself and my ex husband where good enough to be parents,I knew for a fact we were!

We've had problems with the birth parents recently as well,adoption isn't a fairy tale or for the weak willed it's been bloody hard at time's.

However it's also been incredibly rewarding,I remember the first time my youngest told me she loved me and I felt she actually meant it,she'd said it loads of time's before following her big sister really,but I'll never forget it!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This thread stirred up a lot of memories I have ignored for some time.

I was 'tested' when I applied for artificial insemination. Nothing as crude as an IQ test but four mandatory sessions on why I wanted to bear a child and what I could offer a child.

At the end of the process I decided to never try again, either through AID or through sex.

I looked at adoption and decided I didn't have enough to offer what would be a troubled young person.

Maybe we need to include more in PSHE about parenting and not just contraception.

Adoption can certainly be a roller-coaster of emotions. It took me a long time to decide adoption was for me and I also resented the fact it was in someone's hand as to whether they thought myself and my ex husband where good enough to be parents,I knew for a fact we were!

We've had problems with the birth parents recently as well,adoption isn't a fairy tale or for the weak willed it's been bloody hard at time's.

However it's also been incredibly rewarding,I remember the first time my youngest told me she loved me and I felt she actually meant it,she'd said it loads of time's before following her big sister really,but I'll never forget it!"
awwwww I love that hey you've both benefited

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There was one guy who tried to do something similar, what was his name? Hmmmmm, oh yeah, Hitler

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"There was one guy who tried to do something similar, what was his name? Hmmmmm, oh yeah, Hitler "

That's it thread over!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top