License to have children

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard


I think this is a horrible idea.

1. It will incite "class warfare". Why does money have anything to do with raising a child?

2. Who would make the determination to "de-sterilise"? Some faceless beurocrat? Not likely.

It would divide us all as a people. People have children who aren't good parents. It's been going on for millenia.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Sure, let's "license" children, cause the government is always the BEST at making decisisions about your lives.

I'm just foaming at the mouth to let bureacrats decide who and who can't raise kids.

ARE YOU CRAZY?!

I mean, I know plenty of people that I think should not have had children, but to make so that people must be licensed? That's insanity.

Who gets to decide what a fit parent is huh? Who develops the tests? Who gets to approve folk? What happens to people who have kids, who aren't licensed?

Yeah, 1984 welcome to it.

This is the MOST ludicrous and ridiculous idea ever proposed by humanity. Procreation is a right, an inherent right, and regardless of my feelings on who should be allowed to do so, everybody has the right to procreate.

~Tenth

edit on 6/16/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

But not everybody has a right to raise children. We sort of do this already, in that children are taken out of homes where the parents are found to be unfit for whatever reason - drug addict, pedophile, beats and tortures children. Those children are put in the foster care system, where they often endure even more horrors. Most times, these children grow up to have all kinds of issues, sometimes even becoming violent criminals. Should we just turn our backs on these children and say "not my problem"? Would it have been better if those children were never born at all? Sometimes I think so.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Please re-read the OP. Where does it say permanent castration? That to me implies removal of the testes, which cannot be reversed? The idea was to temporarily sterilise newborn children, then when they meet the criteria when they are older the operation can be reveresed.

And you think I am bothered if I was sterilised? Why on earth would I want to bring up a child in this world the way things are going, its selfish.

I agree with the OP, and I dont consider myself to be in favor of big government at all. We have thousands of pages of laws and regulations on the most unimportant stuff possible (something I dont agree with), yet there is complete anarchy in who can bring children into this world and take care of them.

Incompetent parenthood is direct and indirect cause of a substantial part of evil on Earth. I think we would be a lot better off if there was some kind of license for parenthood and reproduction.

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard


I do agree that there are many parents that just should not be parents. But to support the licence option for parenting, you have to look over many details of this idea. Look at what China has done to many of it's citizens. There have been many instances of forced abortions on what would otherwise have been "good" parents. An example of this, are those who have not yet had their licences approved, those that have not had money for outragous fines imposed by government, and people that have reached the 1 child limit. I cannot imagine being forcibly taken from my home, and strapped down on a table, while a doctor ripped my child out piece by piece, but if you think that the government should do this as a service to it's people, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. BTW, it is not the number of children that dictates whether someone is a "good" parent or a "bad" parent. A friend of mine has 4 children, and the mother in this case is one of the mother of the year types, with college already paid for, etc. while many mothers are struggling with one child. I have known people who make more money than I do, but are in bad financial shape for one reason or another, while I myself am frugal. I do not believe that one's parenting abilty can be summed up by an application to have a perenting licence. I do want to know what you propose for people who violate this hypothetical law. Removal of the children? Forced abortion/adoption? Fema style camps? Would this benefit any of us??

Also, I only used China as an example. I do not think that my country is better than any other, and am not critical of any particular culture. I see the human race as de-evolving on a massive scale.

*EDIT - Also, as far as the forced birth control goes, birth control does not always work. According to the Guttmacher institute, (Which has been planned parenthood's research arm) roughly 2/3 of women undergoing abortion were using birth control. It does fail. I have known many women who had a "surprise" pregnancy while on birth control. And, one woman who had 2 while on depo! She aborted the third, because it had some defect that was caused by the depo. Why are women "surprised" by an unexpected pregnancy anyways?? That is what the human body does, pregnancy is a result of having s--. It makes me think of all the overweight people that eat twinkies and Mcd's, and don't know why they are overweight. But, if people take responsibility for their own actions, Maury Povich would be out of work.


P.S. I was raised by a visually impaired, single mother. Sure, I would have like to have been into a wealthy family, but I wasn't. That's just how life is. But, by your standards, I shouldn't be here, I would never have married my husband, or had my beautiful 13 year old daughter.

I don't like this idea.

I've seen the worst kind of people end up being the best parents, and what appears to be the best kind of people be the worst kind.

I can see those with shedloads of money or people of a particular status or class being given a waver on the licence, however i've looked after kids from all class levels who have been abused by parents.

There are arguments for many people not to have kids, i've heard it all, and i don't see how a piece of paper will make a difference. Have you any idea how many dogs are ill treated by so called ideal owners?

No difference with kids.

Bit like when i hear that gays shouldn't adopt kids.....in my 8 years looking after children in care, i never met one that had gay parents that abused them.

Who would police these licences and how? Would it be like a firearms licence? If a parent suffered from a bout of mental illness would thier licence be revoked? If a kid makes a complaint does the licence get looked at?

Sorry but i don't want anyone policing my parenting skills, the ones that will be dictating these laws are no better parents than i am. In fact i wouldn't let my kids within reach of some of the people dictating laws these days.

CX.

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard



Yes..yes..first we force the cripple, zen ze hispanics, zen ze blacks, ze poor, unt ze amerikanische rednecks and finally ze world.... until we have eine reich unt eine folk of pure arians!

Ja...Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses



Looks up towards der fuhrer with tears in eyes...

Zieg Heil, Zieg Heil, Zieg Heil!





Seriously dude, have you ever thought that perhaps, considering what you write in your OP,, your own mother could be eligble for what you suggest?

For those ignorant of history parts of the text above was from Hitlers - the first "Völkisch State" (grins)

I get the feeling that there is going to be a lot of irrelevant logical and informal fallacies posted in a thread like this. Please review these links:

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Slippery slope

reply to post by kaylaluv


Yes, bad things happen, it's unfortunate but that's the way life is.

The solution is not to start deciding who and who can't have children, that's an infringement upon your rights to the highest degree.

~Tenth

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard

What I think should happen is (for example) temporary castration at birth. Then if you want kids later in life you apply for a license to have your castration reversed.

Holy hell...I don't think you know what "castration" means.

I'm hoping you meant vasectomy...not castration.

To have a baby (weather rich, poor, black, white or whatever) you must prove your home is a stable loving environment that has the means to support, love and raise a child.

Who decides this?

Originally posted by RoseH
reply to post by Idonthaveabeard

 

I do agree that there are many parents that just should not be parents. But to support the licence option for parenting, you have to look over many details of this idea. Look at what China has done to many of it's citizens. There have been many instances of forced abortions on what would otherwise have been "good" parents. An example of this, are those who have not yet had their licences approved, those that have not had money for outragous fines imposed by government, and people that have reached the 1 child limit. I cannot imagine being forcibly taken from my home, and strapped down on a table, while a doctor ripped my child out piece by piece, but if you think that the government should do this as a service to it's people, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. BTW, it is not the number of children that dictates whether someone is a "good" parent or a "bad" parent. A friend of mine has 4 children, and the mother in this case is one of the mother of the year types, with college already paid for, etc. while many mothers are struggling with one child. I have known people who make more money than I do, but are in bad financial shape for one reason or another, while I myself am frugal. I do not believe that one's parenting abilty can be summed up by an application to have a perenting licence. I do want to know what you propose for people who violate this hypothetical law. Removal of the children? Forced abortion/adoption? Fema style camps? Would this benefit any of us??

Also, I only used China as an example. I do not think that my country is better than any other, and am not critical of any particular culture. I see the human race as de-evolving on a massive scale.

I am certainly NOT in favor of forced abortions. But as far as parent licenses, look at adoption procedures. Isn't that a lot like getting a parent license? People certainly have to jump through some hoops to adopt a child, even having adoption agency personnel come to their home to inspect it, and interview the people face-to-face. Not to mention all the paperwork involved in adoption procedures.

While I might theoretically approve of parent licenses for everyone, in reality I know that this would be impossible to enforce. Where would the staffing come from to approve these licenses? Social workers are stressed to the max with work overloads the way things are now - and that's only for families that are having problems. To have to inspect every single adult that wants a parent license is a logistical nightmare. And even if someone was approved for a license, you would have to periodically check up on the person, at least for a while. Isn't that what they do with adoptions?

I concur wholeheartly on this opinion.
There are far too many people popping out unwanted children or worse, terminating pregnancies because of sex of fetus. Why do people feel the need to have children when there are so many in the world whom have no family and sit in gov funded child services systems and are treated so horribly.

A while back there was a FB rage that entailed a group of young teenage girls to get pregnant togeather...and this thing went viral...it was the most disturbing thing. Today no matter which country Im in..US right now...I see babies strolling babies, I see young girls texting on their Iphones while pushing the strollers back and forth with their feet, no longer paying any attention what so ever to their child crying, or trying to get their attention..why because the cool effect has run its course and now the babies are an inconvience and an irritant.

Yes licience the ability to bring children into this world, But don`t block or make it impossible to adopt.
Adoption in this country and in my own [Canada] is almost impossible unless you have grand amounts of money and assets, but i ask you this....Is it not better to allow decent people to care for the children in the system, to give them a life to know family even if it is a lower middle class...money dose not make a good human being, love does and money in the bank and assets has never proved better. On the contrary it seems to me the more they have the less able they are able to deal with the realitiees of life.

Take care of the ones we have in the world now.....give these kids the opportunity to live a healthy balanced life, stop bringing children into the world for the reason of continuing on your line....who the f... cares if the child has your blood...what matters is they have you and you have them...these kids have the same ability to give you love and be yours truly sometimes more so than the ones we give birth to.

Just My Opinion,

Well, who is going to decide who is fit? At the end of the day this about money isn't it? Most of you are going to say it's not, but that's going to be the deciding factor in such a system.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Sounds kinda "Big Government-ey" to me.

I don't know. Maybe it should happen. Mr. intelligent man capable of supporting a family will probably have two kids. Mr. dumb guy who can't support a family will have 5 or more kids.

There are some women without the mental power to balance a checkbook, and yet they are trusted to raise kids properly? It's absurd.

Originally posted by antonia
Well, who is going to decide who is fit? At the end of the day this about money isn't it? Most of you are going to say it's not, but that's going to be the deciding factor in such a system.

Well, isn't money the reason it became illegal to have sex with 15 year olds? Young teens were married off and had kids of their own before the age of technology made it impossible for teens to support a family without an education. We think it's wrong today, but way back when it was the way of the world. (Whoa! 7 W's in that last sentence. Don't think I've ever seen that before.)

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard


Perhaps an indepth psychological evaluation of prospective parents. Racists Nazis at the top of the list that want to breed other Nazi Racists. That's the problem; not the poor or people of color.

It's the power trippin fools that want to control other people to the extent of a Holocaust, euthanasia, or forced sterilization that are the problem.


License the racists, Nazis and fascists first!!!

Originally posted by Maslo
I agree with the OP, and I dont consider myself to be in favor of big government at all. We have thousands of pages of laws and regulations on the most unimportant stuff possible (something I dont agree with), yet there is complete anarchy in who can bring children into this world and take care of them.

Incompetent parenthood is direct and indirect cause of a substantial part of evil on Earth. I think we would be a lot better off if there was some kind of license for parenthood and reproduction.

Somewhere along the way you have been indoctrinated with this belief. Children reflect their environment, and the fact that our prisons are overflowing, our kids are ruined by drugs, our young girls are having abortions and other such evils have everything to do with declining morality in society as a whole. Parents will teach what they have been taught. You are blaming parents for teaching these children exactly what society is teaching the parents. If we want responsible parents, we must have a society that values morality. Many of these kids sure love money, but that is what is valuable. Surely is life and respect was valuable, we would see those values start to trickle down to children. Children are a reflection of parents, but to think the solution is to dictate who can and can't have children is fascist and playing God. People are completely blinded these days to any truth whatsoever - they see the outcomes of worsening morality all around them and instead of fixing what CAUSED the outcome, they look to a solution that does nothing whatsoever to address what caused the problem in the first place. The parents are raising disrespectful children because no value is placed on respect. The parents are raising children who only love money because no value is placed on anything else. The parents are raising children who steal because no value is placed on property belonging to others and not coveting. So, knowing this, how is licensing parents going to solve any of the problems today when the cause of it is not addressed? And to support this idea means you are willing to allow someone else to dictate WHO gets to decide which 'qualities' are a reputable.

Gosh, this entire topic is such a debasement to mankind and such proof of just how successful fascist indoctrination and propaganda has been on the youth, that they can't even see that they have accepted 1984 in their hearts and minds. The mark of the beast is stamped all over people today - their minds are in line with it. They are going to accept and fight for all the evils coming because they've been sold as 'good'. If there is no set standard for morality, society grinds itself into the dust because the standard keeps lowering every generation. Beliefs like this don't solve ANYTHING, they just give power to the evil to control every aspect of future lives. Don't you know how it ends? All hearts continually evil.

I am going to Flag this one as it certainly is a slippery slope we all are facing. Perhaps not right now, but its time will come; this is prelude to murder in the hands of murderers. Do we know any murderers that are in power? I certainly do.

Every child has the right to be born and the potential to be a Saint. Imagine the already lost teachers, "true" leaders, and Saints who have been removed from the womb.

NO, this is a means to a horrible ending! Just educate our youth and our leaders; there is more than enough resource for everyone and room as well. It is the very few fortunate who dictate. The smallest is the victim.

Along the lines of birth control and procreation in general; of course, my first choice would be to have the federal government not play a role at all in either limiting a person’s ability to procreate (through any form of public funded birth control or abortion) or the intervention to mitigate the effects of their poor decision making (Be it in the form of health care, schooling, or any other programs not enumerated in the constitution). That is not the current environment.

However, since we are already in the role of the latter (providing aid and comfort) it seems the former (setting limits and restrictions) would also then be necessary.

As it stands now the government has assumed the role of the indulgent and forgiving Nanny who will assist these people and their innocent offspring as they do and continue to make poor choices over and over.

What we lack is the necessarily complimentary role of the rational decision making father who will impose discipline and set boundaries.

I contend that much like a family without both roles it is more likely to fail than not. A family with one or both parents who coddle, tolerate and even reward poor behavior without the opposite and equal role of that of a standard setting enforcer will soon be bankrupt (morally and financially).

The poor and ignorant (who I guess do not understand how babies are made) are indulged and forgiven and in some cases even rewarded (more money for each child) for their poor decision making under the guise of protecting the innocent children who they create. This is in the form of welfare, wic, food stamps, head start, free/reduced child care etc.

While at the same time there are virtually no limits upon those programs - "for the sake of the children". No one in their right mind wishes ill to a child – yet where does one draw the line? How much “aid” is too much and for how long should one be able to draw the “aid” – I contend that we have gone way too far. People can and do draw the aid forever and pass on that tendency to their often many and varied offspring.

It may sound harsh but if these people who have, then continue to have children they cannot afford or support were punished and controlled rather than indulged and rewarded the behavior would likely and necessarily change.

I contend that while it may seem cruel forcing an irresponsible person to watch their child starve might indeed reinforce the idea that continued procreation without the means to support the offspring might be a bad idea.

However, we continue to not only support these individuals here with money from our taxes, we support the third world hungry and poor who breed like rabbits (knowingly spreading AIDs as well) while they live in places where no food grows or there is no stability (wars, strife etc.) in which to raise their offspring. Obviously, the message is not setting in that this is bad.

Until that situation changes the burden will just continue to increase since there is virtually no down side to their stupid choices.

If people want to accept government hand outs I contend that they should also then necessarily cede a good portion of their right to make similar decisions that lead to the predicament in the first place.

1] What I mean here are benefits being dependant on being drug and alcohol free; and mandatory contraception and some form of employment for the benefit of the state. Hell, they can pick up trash on the highways or whatever - something.

2] This goes for both the fathers (who largely go un involved in the process of family after the act of procreation) and the mothers.

3] Hunt the fathers down; garnish their wages make them pay something either labor or cash - a man's role is to support and defend his If you father 3 children out of wedlock and can't support them I say mandatory sterilization for you! DNA tests can prove this if the mothers had to name the father to get the benefits we'd be able to recoup some of the loss IMO. If you are so morally bankrupt you don’t know who the father is name all your partners and let the DNA tests find out.

One should cede some freedoms in this situation; much like when one (perhaps unemployed or handicapped) lives under the roof of a parent as an adult in exchange for this parental support continued past the norm and that is extraordinary in nature. This is no different if the state has to assume that role – likely they will have to give up some of their “adult freedoms” in exchange for assistance and aid from the public coffers.

In summary – have all the kids you want; just don’t expect to be able to continue to do so if you request “aid” or “public assistance”. It should be temporary. Once you get back on your feet pop them out all you want…

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard

Interesting topic. I have a few questions about your proposal.
1. Who gets the power to issue pregnency licenses?
2. In the US, would this power be granted on the municipal, county, state or federal level?
3. Would you propose some sort of "committee" be created to review and either approve or reject applictions?
4. Or would you propose a simpler system, like a random lottery?
5. How do you propose to combat the inevitable issue of corruption (e.g. Committee members taking bribes for preferential treatment during the application process)?

More importantly, how do you propose to deal with the following scenarios:
1. Unlicensed births? (Perhaps every hospital should have a firing squad to make sure that unlicensed babies are "taken care of" shortly after birth).
2. Pregnency that is a result of rape? (Maybe forced termination of the fetus).
3. A birth that "slips though the cracks"? (Maybe very baby born "legally" should be given an implant that identifies the child as "valid." Anyone caught without this implant shall be executed immediately.)

I'm very sorry to say, the idea of licensing human existance is tyranical, despotic, inhumane, and generally offensive. If this idea catches on with anyone in government AT ANY LEVEL, mark my words, there will be an ugly rebellion. In my view, individual freedom trumps anyone's vision of the "greater good" EVERY TIME. How many times in history has one mans version of the greater good actually lead to peace and prosperity?