3 ms·

> How about some minimal coaching so that all parents are aware of the state of the art in child psychology and techniques to do better as parents. 1. We don't

> How about some minimal coaching so that all parents are aware of the state of the art in child psychology and techniques to do better as parents. 1. We don't know as much as people think we do about what constitutes "good parenting". At best, we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that, and the people exhibiting those behaviours need therapy themselves, so a parenting course won't fix that. 2. You're basically turning what is normally considered an innate human right into a privilege for which you need to earn a license. This invites all kinds of abuse (only the right kinds of people get this license!).

zkelvin 3y ago
Is childbirth an innate human right? Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them?
- naasking 3y ago
  > Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them? That question is incoherent.
  - zkelvin 3y ago
    It's a perfectly coherent question! I'd kindly ask that you try to comply with Hacker News's guidelines about engaging in kind dialogue, and specifically the line "please don't post shallow dismissals". Here's what I consider to be a simpler question to answer: do you think people have the right to give birth to a child whose existence would be only horrible, endless suffering before eventually succumbing to death? This isn't just a hypothetical: people tend to agree that a parents who are at high chance of birthing a child with a terrible genetic disease probably shouldn't take that risk (or, at least, should protect against it with some preimplantation genetic testing). But everyone suffers at least a little bit at some point in their life. If you don't think people have a right to birth children whose lives would be pure suffering, but you do think people have a right to birth children who would suffer at least a little bit in their lives, then how do you justify one but not the other? Is there some threshold amount of misery which you think is okay to inflict on someone without their consent? There may be some other moral framework or argument which articulately justifies this, and I'm genuinely curious to see if someone has come up with an interesting answer to the question.
- JustBreath 3y ago
  Pretty much. Unless you've worked out how to obtain consent from someone that doesn't exist either we create kids without their consent or society ends.
  - zkelvin 3y ago
    Inability to obtain consent does not imply consent. Do you consider the continuation of our society to be more important than respecting consent?
- syncbehind 3y ago
  >Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them? Is this satire?
  - zkelvin 3y ago
    It's a legitimate question! Many people wish they had never been born. What right do you have to force such a person into existence without their consent?
    - syncbehind 3y ago
      In the absence of someone's ability to give consent - ie. Informed consent in medical terms- the responsibility is assumed by the parents or guardian. Since an infant or fetus is unable to provide consent, why would you think a parent is incapable of doing so? This is a baffling line of thought to me.
ericmcer 3y ago
2 is tricky because we live in a society where the group is responsible for an individuals bad parenting decisions. Our options are to keep creating support programs to cover for bad parenting (not nearly as effective as good parents) or to stop “bad” parents from having kids (not super moral).
mrguyorama 3y ago
>we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that Horse crap, a huge amount of parents genuinely believe violence is a necessity for child rearing (including frequent repetitions of "spare the rod, spoil the child") to the point that they've even pushed to bring it back into public schools! Even the very basics are not accepted as fact by many.
- naasking 3y ago
  > Horse crap, a huge amount of parents genuinely believe violence is a necessity for child rearing (including frequent repetitions of "spare the rod, spoil the child") to the point that they've even pushed to bring it back into public schools! The effects of corporal punishment are small compared to the effects of molestation and physical abuse. If corporal punishment were our only "issue", we'd be much better off. I wouldn't even classify this under "the very basics".
  - gls2ro 3y ago
    What are you saying here? Corporal punishment is physical and psychological abuse. It is in the title: punishment is a judgement and corporal is the violence. There is no such thing as corporal punishment that is also not an abuse. Maybe there is a scale of it but it is abuse.
    - naasking 3y ago
      > It is in the title: punishment is a judgement and corporal is the violence Are you suggesting that judging your child's actions as wrong is psychological abuse? > There is no such thing as corporal punishment that is also not an abuse. That's incorrect, and the legal precedent has been clear on the legality of spanking and the distinction from abuse: https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/defining/disc-abuse/ https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/defining/disc-abuse/
      - commoner 3y ago

zkelvin 3y ago

Is childbirth an innate human right? Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them?

naasking 3y ago
> Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them? That question is incoherent.
- zkelvin 3y ago
  It's a perfectly coherent question! I'd kindly ask that you try to comply with Hacker News's guidelines about engaging in kind dialogue, and specifically the line "please don't post shallow dismissals". Here's what I consider to be a simpler question to answer: do you think people have the right to give birth to a child whose existence would be only horrible, endless suffering before eventually succumbing to death? This isn't just a hypothetical: people tend to agree that a parents who are at high chance of birthing a child with a terrible genetic disease probably shouldn't take that risk (or, at least, should protect against it with some preimplantation genetic testing). But everyone suffers at least a little bit at some point in their life. If you don't think people have a right to birth children whose lives would be pure suffering, but you do think people have a right to birth children who would suffer at least a little bit in their lives, then how do you justify one but not the other? Is there some threshold amount of misery which you think is okay to inflict on someone without their consent? There may be some other moral framework or argument which articulately justifies this, and I'm genuinely curious to see if someone has come up with an interesting answer to the question.
JustBreath 3y ago
Pretty much. Unless you've worked out how to obtain consent from someone that doesn't exist either we create kids without their consent or society ends.
- zkelvin 3y ago
  Inability to obtain consent does not imply consent. Do you consider the continuation of our society to be more important than respecting consent?
syncbehind 3y ago
>Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them? Is this satire?
- zkelvin 3y ago
  It's a legitimate question! Many people wish they had never been born. What right do you have to force such a person into existence without their consent?
  - syncbehind 3y ago
    In the absence of someone's ability to give consent - ie. Informed consent in medical terms- the responsibility is assumed by the parents or guardian. Since an infant or fetus is unable to provide consent, why would you think a parent is incapable of doing so? This is a baffling line of thought to me.

ericmcer 3y ago

2 is tricky because we live in a society where the group is responsible for an individuals bad parenting decisions. Our options are to keep creating support programs to cover for bad parenting (not nearly as effective as good parents) or to stop “bad” parents from having kids (not super moral).

mrguyorama 3y ago

>we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that Horse crap, a huge amount of parents genuinely believe violence is a necessity for child rearing (including frequent repetitions of "spare the rod, spoil the child") to the point that they've even pushed to bring it back into public schools! Even the very basics are not accepted as fact by many.

naasking 3y ago
> Horse crap, a huge amount of parents genuinely believe violence is a necessity for child rearing (including frequent repetitions of "spare the rod, spoil the child") to the point that they've even pushed to bring it back into public schools! The effects of corporal punishment are small compared to the effects of molestation and physical abuse. If corporal punishment were our only "issue", we'd be much better off. I wouldn't even classify this under "the very basics".
- gls2ro 3y ago
  What are you saying here? Corporal punishment is physical and psychological abuse. It is in the title: punishment is a judgement and corporal is the violence. There is no such thing as corporal punishment that is also not an abuse. Maybe there is a scale of it but it is abuse.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > It is in the title: punishment is a judgement and corporal is the violence Are you suggesting that judging your child's actions as wrong is psychological abuse? > There is no such thing as corporal punishment that is also not an abuse. That's incorrect, and the legal precedent has been clear on the legality of spanking and the distinction from abuse: https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/defining/disc-abuse/ https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/defining/disc-abuse/
    - commoner 3y ago