Should a license be required to have children? (1 Viewer)

[FallingPianos]

usually when people talk about reproductive rights, they mean the right not to reproduce. What about the other way around? In order to ensure that all children born or adopted here have parents that could adequetly provide for all their needs, should a license be required before a couple has or adopts a child? How would such a law be enforced?

 

[TurtleDude]

It would be nice if we could somehow convince unfit (either mentally or economically) not to breed but the chances of such a system becoming arbitrary is high-not worth the dangers.

 

[Purple]

Yes, yes, yes!

I vote yes.

 

[flaherty12]

what groups of people wouldnt get lisences??

 

[TurtleDude]

what groups of people wouldnt get lisences??

If you have been on welfare for a certain period of time, you shouldn't breed.
If you don't have a certain level of work history-(ie you will be on welfare for a long period of time-you should't breed) If you are chronically addicted to narcotics etc-you shouldn't breed

 

[flaherty12]

i understand you can stop people from reproduceing surgicly, but poverty and adictions are temporary, and i dont think the surgerys can be reversed.

 

[Kandahar]

Certainly not. That would be one of the most egregious abuses a nanny state could possibly commit. Will there be bad parents? Absolutely. Would the federal government make a better parent? Definitely not.

While the analogy is not perfect, a look at China's One-Child Policy will show how well this sort of thing works (or rather, doesn't work).

 

[jfuh]

A liscence to be a parent? Absolutely positively not.
Parenting is not at all the same as obeying traffic laws or so on. It'd be complete BS and the very furthest extent of, quite literally, a nanny state.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Well, you wouldn’t have to deny someone the right to become a parent; you could just make it very prohibitive for unfit parents. If someone can show that they’d be a decent parent, we could give them tax breaks and stuff to encourage them to breed up to a certain number of kids…say 3; after that we could stop adding on benefits for more kids, and start reducing benefits after the 5th kid or so. If someone dropped out of high school, has neither a job nor a GED, and thinks vodka makes for good baby formula, the state could turn their back on them: no tax breaks, cut off their welfare, and deny them most other forms of government assistance. Of course, we’d have to vastly improve the system before that would even begin to approach viability; greatly increase adoptions incentives, make sure the state takes good care of its wards…stuff like that.

So, if the government was much less ****ed up than it ever could be, sure, breeding licenses might be a good idea. But in the real world, it would be racist, classist, and completely unfair. Besides, could you guys imagine the damage something like this could do if the foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing zealots were allowed to set the definition of ideal parents?

I'm gonna have to vote against it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

In a perfect world, it would make a lot of sense...no potentially unfit or neglectful parents would be allowed to have children. But then again, in a perfcet world there would be no unfit or neglectful parents; wow, circular reasoning..what a trip.

Ultimately, the largest stumbling block to having 'parental licenses' is how to determine who will be fit. There is no test to determine future parental abilities. As an example, in order to get a driver's license, one must pass a written test, take driving lessons, have a restricted license (permit), and then pass a driving test with an tester in the car. There is just no way a test could be designed in any simlar way to accurately assess one's ability to be a parent. Make no mistake; I work with kids and I see the effects of poor parenting every day and would often say, jokingly, 'there should be licenses to become a parent'. In reality, it wouldn't work, so, somewhat reluctantly, I vote no.

 

[Monkey Mind]

I can't believe this concept is even being discussed. This goes well beyond "Nanny State", it's an Orwellian nightmare.

 

[FallingPianos]

Well, you wouldn’t have to deny someone the right to become a parent; you could just make it very prohibitive for unfit parents. If someone can show that they’d be a decent parent, we could give them tax breaks and stuff to encourage them to breed up to a certain number of kids…say 3; after that we could stop adding on benefits for more kids, and start reducing benefits after the 5th kid or so.

in other words, tax cuts for the rich.

 

[TurtleDude]

Maybe the question should be this?

are people entitled to breed when we, the taxpayers, are forced to pay for their offspring?

I think its a two way street-you should be free to have as many children you can afford to properly raise and pay for. I think the issue becomes far more complicated when people expect us to pay for their kids. When you are a somewhat permanent ward of the state, I don't think its unreasonable to say that your claims to independence are a bit diminished

 

[jamesrage]

Does the words "eugenics","Hitler" and "Margaret Sanger" ring a bell?

To certian degree it does make sense making welfare moms take birthcontroll until they can afford to take care of children on their own with out any tax payer funded assistance,It should never go beyond that.

 

[Gardener]

How about issuing licenses only to those who display an IQ to weight coefficient of greater than 1?

Just think of the possibilities as we select for intelligence and smaller size, not to mention providing quite a boost to the diet industry (making mental note to self -- lose thirty pounds). Those who weigh less will use less food, and those with more intelligence will realize a good investment opportunity when they see one. A win/win for all concerned.

 

[jamesrage]

How about issuing licenses only to those who display an IQ to weight coefficient of greater than 1?

Just think of the possibilities as we select for intelligence and smaller size, not to mention providing quite a boost to the diet industry (making mental note to self -- lose thirty pounds). Those who weigh less will use less food, and those with more intelligence will realize a good investment opportunity when they see one. A win/win for all concerned.

I think Hitler went down this path.

http://www.history-of-the-holocaust.org/LIBARC/ARCHIVE/Chapters/Stabiliz/Racial/LawForPr.html

From the Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases of 14 July 1933
(1)i. Anyone who has a hereditary illness can be rendered sterile by a surgical operation if, according to the experience of medical science, there is a strong probability that his/her progeny will suffer from serious hereditary defects of a physical or mental nature. ii. Anyone is hereditarily ill within the meaning of the law who suffers from one of the following illnesses: 1. Congenital feeble-mindedness 2. Schizophrenia 3. Manic depression 4. Hereditary epilepsy 5. Huntington's chorea 6. Hereditary blindness 7. Hereditary deafness 8. Serious physical deformities iii. In addition, anyone who suffers from chronic alcoholism can be sterilised.

 

[Gardener]

I think Hitler went down this path.

.

I assumed people would realize I was speaking tongue in cheek.

 

[Kelzie]

I assumed people would realize I was speaking tongue in cheek.

Ah man. And I just went out and bought all those diet pills...:mrgreen:

 

[Gardener]

Ah man. And I just went out and bought all those diet pills...:mrgreen:

Who you tryin to fool, Kelz.

You already have your license!

 

[taxedout]

I have a better idea.

POLL TESTS.
Before you know it, natural selection will prune the problem.

 

[Synch]

The problems that would arise from implementing such a horrific policy far outweighs its minute benefits. I would personally flee to Ireland, Iceland, or China.. :shock:


Although we have greatly reduced natural selection with the welfare state, foreign aid, charity, etc, eugenics is never the answer..

 

[earthworm]

If you have been on welfare for a certain period of time, you shouldn't breed.
If you don't have a certain level of work history-(ie you will be on welfare for a long period of time-you shouldn't breed) If you are chronically addicted to narcotics etc-you shouldn't breed

But who would issue this license, and administer it ??
The state has done a lousy job at the motor vehicle end of it , but I think they are good with the CDLs.

Society has a tolerance problem, this has to be repaired and it will take time - 100 years.....500 years ???

These problems are interlaced, issuing a license solves nothing just creates more paperwork and the paperwork-shufflers.
In a way this idea has some merit, licenses are issued to responsible young men and women, indirectly for having children....

 

[Purple]

Though I know this is a ridiculous idea I can't help but wonder what it would be like to know that people aren't out there having kids just because they can or because they had and "accident" or for any of the other reasons people have children other than because they want to and are prepared to be a parent. I still believe that some people are just not fit to have children and it's too bad that we can't at least make people take parenting classes before they take on the responsibility of raising a human being.

Just because someone can doesn't always mean they should.

 

[FallingPianos]

I think its a two way street-you should be free to have as many children you can afford to properly raise and pay for.

how would this be enforced? would children born to people who cant afford them be taken and given up for adoption? what if there were too many of these children and they couldnt all find adoptive parents? they would become wards of the state again.

forced abortions or forced birth control would be entirely unethical.

 

[FallingPianos]

To certian degree it does make sense making welfare moms take birthcontroll until they can afford to take care of children on their own with out any tax payer funded assistance,It should never go beyond that.

I disagree. I dont think its right to force someone to take any sort of medication, especially one that has side effects like birth control does.