I think the local officals have been on the local moonshine too long.

I have worked with Norwegians from all areas of their Country, bar their liking of the booze, hence dry ships, great people and I 'd go the extra mile for them every time, there's not many I would say that for, in this day and age :)
What you have to remember about Norway is that, as non EU members, their Human Rights laws are not the same as other member states. However, they ARE in the EEA and EFTA, etc etc, so essentially, they are getting the best of both worlds.

They are, however, purist. You just have to look at their laws on what-you-can-or-can't-call-your-child, for example. Only traditional Norwegian names. The fact that they have such a strong Nationalist following (ie, Nationalist but not racist) is a demonstration of this desire to preserve pure Norwegian-ism. But remember that they've only been going 189 years, since the end of the union with Denmark (transition to union with Sweden aside). So they are fervently keen to preserve their purity.

And in line with that, they are not so tolerant of other failings in society, such as this Darwinistic approach to the less fortunate members of society, who at present still have a right to pro-create, even if they are then dis-enabled from bringing up those children.

[The UK sterilised thousands of mentally unstable (note I don't use the word handicapped OR disabled - because the distinction was not clear even at the time, if someone was disabled or just "a bit weird") during the 1950's and 60's. ]

As for the moonshine addled Norwegians, I can totally agree. Considering the vin monopoliet is the only authorised alcohol handler in the whole country, they have forced alcohol underground. Such that moonshine, homebrew, etc, whilst illegal, is so common. You've gotta wonder how the Storting actually fathom that all the Sami (Laps) in the north are complete alcoholics, with a vin monopoliet outlet every 200 miles. That'll be the "brew your own reindeer whisky" kits they sell in the petrol stations, then........
Dutch_Bird said:
Norwegen parents are IQ tested to find their suitability to take care of their children. FANTASTIC idea
After what I have experience in the past few weeks, I think it's a great idea...............
I nursed a young baby of 12 weeks old who was born to a girl of 17 who couldn't read or write and was obviously as thick as a plank when I tried to discuss the baby's condition with her, she hadn't got a bloody clue - she even took nappies home from the hospital - work that one out.
Her boyfriend is just as uneducated.........and Thank You God, currently being investigated by the police.

The sad tale is that the baby was crying in it's cot and mother got up and went off to make coffee, the boyfriend picked up the baby, next thing the baby became 'floppy' and quiet and an ambulance was called.
Baby was resuscitated in the ambulance and arrested again in casualty.
Successfully resuscitated he was eventually transferred to the ward via ICU, his brain was bruised so much that he is now braindamaged and blind - the only way he is fed is through a tube.
The poor little soul may not be alive as I type this.
This wasnt his first visit back to the hospital in his short life.

Another scenario, smackhead mother, can't read or write and married to a guy 35 years older, has 4 children in care already, baby was admitted to the ward as 'not thriving' - this little one is 6 months old and was fed on pies that his father had previously chewed up to soften.
He was given orange squash to drink constantly, not milk to build up his bones.
He was being taken into care the following week.

I worked the night before the social worker came to take him away - an absolutely gorgeous little boy, he is too.
The mother stayed the night with the curtains around his cot - I was a nervous wreck, particularly as at one point the baby was crying and the mother started screaming at him to stop.

Another example - this mother could read and write, but her baby was admitted as 'not thriving'. This mother just couldn't understand that the baby requires milk regularly.
This little one was admitted on 2 occasions that I can recall, after being in hospital and being tube fed to give him the required nourishment he needed, soon as the baby went home she stopped giving him supplementary bottles, even though it was stressed to her how important it was to do this.
The information just didnt get through.

Do you want me to go on.................?

It's a bloody brilliant idea to vet one's suitability to care for kids, and before anyone dares to talk about the human rights of these 'parents' what about the human rights of these poor babies that are being brought into the world - they dont have any, and many are suffering for a long time before anyone actually notices a 'problem'.

Ok, rant over, but I see much more than most people ever will. :evil:

Mr Happy

OK Life saver, you've convinced me.

Or maybe licenses to have babies so that every mother (open floodgates) has to go to a class and get a certificate. Those without one get regular visits from healthcare workers.
Unfortunately our society encourages the type of people Lifesaver is talking about to breed. They get too many benefits and they are cocooned by social services.

However, much of the blame lies with the lack of education. There appears to be no discipline or teaching of civic responsibility in schools. Many teachers do not set a good example and seek to avoid responsibility for everything. The same is often true of parents. Not teaching children how to behave today leads to them becoming the irresponsible parents of the future.

Removal of the children and compulsory sterilisation is the way ahead.
Removal of the children and compulsory sterilisation is the way ahead.
But unfortunately this is a mine field, who would decide who gets sterilised? Social services? I'm afraid I don't have much confidence in them. Probably because like every public service they are overstretched, underpaid and have crap management.
All for this idea of licencing before being allowed to produce kids. There are clearly people around that are just too irresponsible to be allowed to breed and make the rest of us foot the bill in so many ways.


This is all very scary! Who gets to decide who's a fit parent? :roll:
And using what criteria? The potential for persecution of people with unconformist lifestyles is massive....what a great way to control the population...taken to the extreme (and it happens in Europe) children of gypsies...children of gays.....wrong religous views..wrong politics...don't think it cannot go that far...a slippery slope begins with a government that interferes too much into people private lives...and it certainly is going that way here.

My next door neighbour is a social worker and wrestles kids away from their 'unsuitable' parents for a living.
One of her two kids by different men was denied access to her father for the three months before he died and the little girl has since observed at least 6 further 'daddies' in her mums bed! But it was the 90's and she was single-heigh ho.

My babies are MY babies and unless there's outright neglect or cruelty going on Big Brother can fukc right off :x

Slightly off on a tangent-
Of course after a marriage break up it's mostly the woman (sometimes dad) who get's left to cope with the children alone and in reduced circumstances.
It takes a mother and a father to raise the children and if he leaves and she subsequently can't cope she is seen as a failing mother rather than someone who is doing her best despite her circumstances.

It's not just about babies who are brought into the world by less than ideal's also about babies who lose the previously competent parenting they had and are subsequently impoverished by it.

Babies are for life not just while you're with their mother.

Can i keep this soapbox? :p
'It's my right to have babies!' - how often do we hear this crap, often from individuals on benefit or using NHS funds on IVF treatment so they can inflict their genes on the world. OK, if there's a 'right' to spawn, surely the parents should also have the right to support their offspring without recourse to the state; those of us who choose not to have children don't then have to pay for the selfish attitudes of others. In other words: you want them, you pay for them. Can't afford it? This way to the sterilisation clinic...

Mr Happy

Crikey VB! Und ze rest of you must go to ze showers...

I don't think prevention/automatic adoption or whatever is a good thing but some kind of parent competance certificate should be required between pregnancy and birth just so 17 year old girls in state housing get a bit of groundwork beyond the "don't drink that vodka Shel' its bad for the baby, av this gin instead"...

The only real qualification to have a baby is love of course. And you can't test that with paper and pen.

All teary eyed and homesick now. Going to drink to oblivion now.

Similar threads

Latest Threads