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

[Wham]

What a horribly prejudiced thing to write! Economic stature does not buy you the right to have children and comments like that are the essence of racism in America.

:thumbdown

Your charges of racism are omnipresent. There was no mention of race by TurtleDude or any other member until you so graciously chimed in. Like a typical liberal, when you don't have an arguement but you want to start one anyway, you throw out the racist label. You should have a T-shirt made that says, "You're a Racist!", and wear it proudly.

I've only been on this forum for a few days, but I have you figured out. Just a troll looking to stir the pot.

 

[DeeJayH]

Your charges of racism are omnipresent. There was no mention of race by TurtleDude or any other member until you so graciously chimed in. Like a typical liberal, when you don't have an arguement but you want to start one anyway, you throw out the racist label. You should have a T-shirt made that says, "You're a Racist!", and wear it proudly.

I've only been on this forum for a few days, but I have you figured out. Just a troll looking to stir the pot.

yeah right
since when does
Economic Stature = Racism

 

[FallingPianos]

That's one of the reasons. Another, and probably the most important as far as the welfare of the child is concerned, is to make sure that those applying for adoption are "qualified" to care for and shape the life of another human being.

well yes, but they dont do that nearly so much when they dont have the time to do it because there are to few parents seeking to adopt.

If this sounds reasonable, then why is it only done for those adopting and not for biological parents?

because adopting another persons child is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Jerry]

well yes, but they dont do that nearly so much when they dont have the time to do it because there are to few parents seeking to adopt.

because adopting another persons child is a privilege, not a right.

Congress can regulate a person's 'fundamental right' to marry, so it logically follows that Congress can also regulate a person's 'fundamental right' to reproduce.

 

[FallingPianos]

Congress can regulate a person's 'fundamental right' to marry, so it logically follows that Congress can also regulate a person's 'fundamental right' to reproduce.

first, I've never argued that marriage is a fundamental right.

second, even if it is a fundamental right, congress can only do so because it has the power to do so, not because its morally correct, or even legal.

 

[Wham]

Which one is it?

supply and demand. there are far more parents out there seeking to adopt a newborn infant then newborn infants available for adoption.

well yes, but they dont do that nearly so much when they dont have the time to do it because there are to few parents seeking to adopt.

I challenge you to apply for an adoption and see how long it takes to receive your child and how many screenings, questions, interviews, etc. you must endure to "make the grade'. I don't think the government/adoption agencies would place a child with any parent if they didn't perform their due diligence. Not on moral grounds, but because of the heat they would take from the public if any harm was done to a child as a result of "rushing the process".

because adopting another persons child is a privilege, not a right.

That's where I disagree with the law. It shouldn't be anyone's right to breed. It should be a privilege, just as adoption. The end result is the same. In both cases you have parents who are responsible for raising a child, the only difference is under the law.

By the way, we also have the right to bear arms, but the government regulates that too.

 

[Stace]

That's where I disagree with the law. It shouldn't be anyone's right to breed. It should be a privilege, just as adoption. The end result is the same. In both cases you have parents who are responsible for raising a child, the only difference is under the law.

By the way, we also have the right to bear arms, but the government regulates that too.

:roll: I don't know about you, but I was born with the necessary equipment for reproduction, but I certainly wasn't born holding a 9 mm in my little fist. Reproduction is much more of a right than bearing arms.

 

[TurtleDude]

What a horribly prejudiced thing to write! Economic stature does not buy you the right to have children and comments like that are the essence of racism in America.

:thumbdown

psychobabble. I made no mention of race. If people can afford children they should have them. I shouldn't have to pay for their offspring though. As usual, you continue to confuse rights with entitlements and throw race around in some faux indignation in an attempt to stifle comments that don't correspond with the welfare socialist model you advocate.

 

[TurtleDude]

:roll: I don't know about you, but I was born with the necessary equipment for reproduction, but I certainly wasn't born holding a 9 mm in my little fist. Reproduction is much more of a right than bearing arms.

really-is that based on a 9th amendment analysis :mrgreen:

A right-the ability to do something without 1) the government oppressing you for doing it and 2) without someone else having to pay for it

an entitlement-something someone else pays for.

You do have the right to breed. You do not have the right to not care for your offspring under most circumstances-we put people in jail for child abuse.

You also do not have the right to force other people to pay for your children. that is an entitlement we need to end

 

[Stace]

really-is that based on a 9th amendment analysis :mrgreen:

A right-the ability to do something without 1) the government oppressing you for doing it and 2) without someone else having to pay for it

an entitlement-something someone else pays for.

You do have the right to breed. You do not have the right to not care for your offspring under most circumstances-we put people in jail for child abuse.

You also do not have the right to force other people to pay for your children. that is an entitlement we need to end

Having suffered abuse at the hands of my stepfather, I certainly don't intend to continue that cycle. Child abusers make me sick. And no one else is paying for anything regarding my child, not unless you want to count things like paying taxes that will cover his education, or paying into their health insurance policy, or buying gifts for my child.....but seeing as how those things could all be considered voluntary to a certain extent, we'll assume that that's not what you mean, and instead we're talking about things like welfare and Medicare.

So, since my child is not going to be growing up in an abusive household, and his father and I do not rely on any sort of government assistance to provide for him, I guess I'm good to go.

 

[Wham]

:roll: I don't know about you, but I was born with the necessary equipment for reproduction, but I certainly wasn't born holding a 9 mm in my little fist. Reproduction is much more of a right than bearing arms.

I would hope you were not born with a 9mm in your little hand. I would consider that a major birth defect. But, you were born with the ability to learn how to use a 9mm. That doesn't give you the right to shoot someone does it?

I was rebutting a point by using an example of a so called "right" that is regulated by the government.

 

[Monkey Mind]

Thanks! And it's true, too. The reason behind the programs may not always be good, and the programs don't always fix the problem they are meant to, but there is always a reason. I'd like you to name me a few programs that have absolutely no reason for being, if you still disagree.

We're discussing one such program now. No doubt in the minds of their creators, every school program has a reason, so I'll concede that point. Substitute "good reason" or "justification" though, and my comment stands.

Absolutely true, and just as disturbing to me as it is to you. But the answer is to improve school food, not to cut it off and hope the kids find healthy food elsewhere. I'd think that the slop is still a bit better than nothing, for the truly hungry children.

Agreed, school food should be improved. And of course slop is better than nothing, if you're starving. However, feeding children is not the purpose of a school. Schools have enough problems achieving their primary objective without adding extra bullshit into the mix. I would reference a bunch of studies showing how American students are falling behind the rest of the world, but I'm lazy and we've all seen those before so I don't really need to. You get the point.

And when there are no hungry or malnourished children, I will rejoice that the laws and government entities are doing their jobs. In the meantime, there are hungry children in the schools, and they should be fed. I'm also curious how would feeding hungry kids interfere with the enforcement of child neglect laws?

You seem confused, I never said anything about food programs interfering with child neglect laws. What they interfere with is the schools' primary purpose - education. If kids are hungry they should be fed by their parents. If the parents don't feed them, social services can take them away and give them to other parents. Those are the entities and laws I spoke of.