• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A license to have children [W:81]

A license to have children?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 20.6%
  • No

    Votes: 79 73.8%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 6 5.6%

  • Total voters
    107
No way. Educational programs do almost nothing to reduce social programs like this, because the people who need it most are the people who don't care about it, take it seriously or pursue it. I love education, but that's because I want to learn things and so I pursue education and information.

The thing about child licenses is NOT that they would be ineffective, it's that they would be controversial/unethical/immoral/unconstitutional, or so many would feel.

Personally though, I think children's rights not to be raised in pathetically substandard environments should supersede people's reproductive rights. The primary challenges are to 1) defeat people's emotional objections to this idea, and 2) regulate it cost-effectively.

Some people are serious about it and trying to do something about it. Exhibit A: Sterilize for Cash: Paying Drug Addicts to Not Have Kids - TIME

We couldn't even effectively ban alcohol or drugs in this country. Trying to regulate sexual activity is like a dream within a dream. Overwhelming number of logistical challenges, all of which have terrible synergy with our culture.

For example, even if you could make society stomach it (impossible), then the very first abuse committed by the bureaucracy would send people bouncing off the walls with protests or resistance of all sorts.
 
Last edited:
Your confusion is simply too much for me. I believe I've been clear enough, logical enough and plain enough in my presentation of the facts. If one cannot follow what I have presented and, for some reason, it is beyond grasp, then there's not much more I can do.

"Animals are imaginary"? hahaha wtf Talk about lost without hope. I get the feeling I've been here before, with you.

Good day.

Given that you have simply made up arguments that no one has ever made, no, you are not in the least bit clear.

What's with your animals kick today?
 
We couldn't even effectively ban alcohol or drugs in this country. Trying to regulate sexual activity is like a dream within a dream. Overwhelming number of logistical challenges, all of which have terrible synergy with our culture.

Who said that (the bold)?
 
Given that you have simply made up arguments that no one has ever made, no, you are not in the least bit clear.

I think you misunderstand and fail to grasp my arguments, as they are NOT based on yours but facts.

What's with your animals kick today?

What? I'm on an "animals kick" everyday - I'm vegan ~15 years.
 
Last edited:
It would be voluntary. If they want a check, get sterilized. That is not coercion. They don't HAVE TO take the check.
Your ideology blinds you. Here, let me help you out...

Coerce - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

co·ercedco·erc·ing
Definition of COERCE
1: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
— co·erc·ible adjective
Examples of COERCE
A confession was coerced from the suspect by police.
<was coerced into signing the document>

-and-

Coercion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

2.4 Coercive Offers?

While the dominant strand in recent theory has associated coercion with threats, and denied that offers can be used to coerce, this sharp differentiation of these two sorts of proposals has come in for some criticism. The parallel structure of conditional threats and conditional offers has led some to deny that there is a deep distinction to be made between them. Others have focused on the role of both in the broader political and economic context, and found that these broader conditions make coercive offers a live possibility. Dealings in capitalist markets are often highly exploitative; governments often condition the provision of ordinary benefits on the satisfaction of unrelated demands (such as making highway funding conditional on states' passing particular laws). Given the potency such offers possess, one might suspect that there are many offers that one cannot reasonably refuse, possibly reflecting great imbalances in power or prior historical injustices between the bargaining parties. (See, for instance, O'Neill 1991; and Berman 2001.)

-and-

What is COERCION? definition of COERCION (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is COERCION?

Compulsion; force; duress. It may be either actual, (direct or positive.) where physical force Is put upon a man to compel him to do an act against his will, or implied, (legal or constructive.) where the relation of the parties is such that one is under subjection to the other, and is thereby constrained to do what his free will would refuse. State v. Darlington, 153 Ind. 1, 53 N. E. 025; Cliappell v. Trent, 00 Va. S49, 19 S. E. 314; Radicli v. Ilutohins, 95 U. S. 213, 24 L. Ed. 409; Peyser v. New York, 70 N. Y. 497. 20 Am. Rep. G24; State v. Boyle, 13 R. I. 53S.
 
If something isn't done soon, we will end up like China... Limiting the number of children, just to prevent massive starvation.

I am with those who would stop any benefits after 2 children. I would also reduce incarceration time for vasectomies, or sterilization.

I have to say that, I am surprised by the number of Libertarians who would require education, or the state regulating procreation.
 
Your ideology blinds you. Here, let me help you out...
(snip)
governments often condition the provision of ordinary benefits on the satisfaction of unrelated demands (such as making highway funding conditional on states' passing particular laws). Given the potency such offers possess, one might suspect that there are many offers that one cannot reasonably refuse, possibly reflecting great imbalances in power or prior historical injustices between the bargaining parties. (See, for instance, O'Neill 1991; and Berman 2001.)

"One might suspect the offer cannot reasonably be refused, reflecting power imbalances" does not mean "definite coercion."


Do you consider Workfare to be coercion too?

How about employment in general? I'm "forced" to work for others if I want to have money to pay bills and feed my family? My worker places contingencies of our arrangement on my successful performance of the things it wants done. Is this coercion? Does my employer therefore "have all the power imbalance" just because he's the one cutting the checks?

Thanks for your citations, but the idea that a welfare contingency is automatic coercion is ridiculous. Thinking of coercion that way casts doubt on the validity of all sorts of otherwise completely valid contractual agreements.
 
Last edited:
Should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children? If so, what should be the standards to qualify and why?

People need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc and society is inundated with government regulations as it is, and yet people can breed freely without regard for their ability to provide for their children and regardless of genetic health. Personally, I think it would be disastrous to give the government control over reproduction, especially considering the lousy job it does with everything else. And yet, it is illogical for unhealthy and/or poverty stricken people to breed.

There is a simple solution. All males born must have a reversible vasectomy at birth.

Then all children must begin parenting classes at about 7th grade and continue till 12th grade.

All couples who want to have children...must pass a written or verbal parenting skills test. If they pass, then the male can have a vasectomy reversal.

If at anytime a couple (or as an individual - whichever applies) is found guilty of abuse, neglect, or abandonment...the guilty parent or parents must be permanently sterilized.

Sound cruel? It's no more cruel than millions of abused, neglected, and abandoned children have had to endure over the ages.
 
I don't care about fine semantic distinctions that you think are important, particularly not as bait. Reproduction is a sexual activity that involves sex.

Um, I would say sexual activity/sex is a pleasurable activity that may result in reproduction. If some of the ideas that have been tossed around in this thread were enacted, it would be sexually liberating, not sexually regulating.
 
That is coercion. Needy people trading their fertility for food is coercive.

Nonsense. Fertility should come with stipulations. EVERYTHING in life has stipulations. In nature, if animals cannot provide for their young, they do not survive. Humans live against nature, and it is no longer sustainable. If people have children they cannot support and need help with that, fine, but they should not be having more children for everyone else to support.

Your ideology blinds you. Here, let me help you out...

Coerce - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

co·ercedco·erc·ing
Definition of COERCE
1: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
— co·erc·ible adjective
Examples of COERCE
A confession was coerced from the suspect by police.
<was coerced into signing the document>

-and-

Coercion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

2.4 Coercive Offers?

While the dominant strand in recent theory has associated coercion with threats, and denied that offers can be used to coerce, this sharp differentiation of these two sorts of proposals has come in for some criticism. The parallel structure of conditional threats and conditional offers has led some to deny that there is a deep distinction to be made between them. Others have focused on the role of both in the broader political and economic context, and found that these broader conditions make coercive offers a live possibility. Dealings in capitalist markets are often highly exploitative; governments often condition the provision of ordinary benefits on the satisfaction of unrelated demands (such as making highway funding conditional on states' passing particular laws). Given the potency such offers possess, one might suspect that there are many offers that one cannot reasonably refuse, possibly reflecting great imbalances in power or prior historical injustices between the bargaining parties. (See, for instance, O'Neill 1991; and Berman 2001.)

-and-

What is COERCION? definition of COERCION (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is COERCION?

Compulsion; force; duress. It may be either actual, (direct or positive.) where physical force Is put upon a man to compel him to do an act against his will, or implied, (legal or constructive.) where the relation of the parties is such that one is under subjection to the other, and is thereby constrained to do what his free will would refuse. State v. Darlington, 153 Ind. 1, 53 N. E. 025; Cliappell v. Trent, 00 Va. S49, 19 S. E. 314; Radicli v. Ilutohins, 95 U. S. 213, 24 L. Ed. 409; Peyser v. New York, 70 N. Y. 497. 20 Am. Rep. G24; State v. Boyle, 13 R. I. 53S.

LOL it's your type of ideology which keeps the rest of us paying for other people's children.

My husband and I barely manage to keep our heads above the water each month, and we are drowning in bills and yet our pathetic paychecks cover our expenses. However, we are also paying for other people to breed. I have a problem with that. I got my tubes tied (which I paid for btw), so why shouldn't they? hell I'd even support paying them extra money to get the procedure done. Even if these people were offered $10,000 plus welfare benefits, it would still save money overall.

"One might suspect the offer cannot reasonably be refused, reflecting power imbalances" does not mean "definite coercion."


Do you consider Workfare to be coercion too?

How about employment in general? I'm "forced" to work for others if I want to have money to pay bills and feed my family? My worker places contingencies of our arrangement on my successful performance of the things it wants done. Is this coercion? Does my employer therefore "have all the power imbalance" just because he's the one cutting the checks?

Thanks for your citations, but the idea that a welfare contingency is automatic coercion is ridiculous. Thinking of coercion that way casts doubt on the validity of all sorts of otherwise completely valid contractual agreements.

Too many people are "thinking" with their emotions, ovaries, or testicles. Common sense is refreshing on this issue.

There is a simple solution. All males born must have a reversible vasectomy at birth.

Then all children must begin parenting classes at about 7th grade and continue till 12th grade.

All couples who want to have children...must pass a written or verbal parenting skills test. If they pass, then the male can have a vasectomy reversal.

If at anytime a couple (or as an individual - whichever applies) is found guilty of abuse, neglect, or abandonment...the guilty parent or parents must be permanently sterilized.

Sound cruel? It's no more cruel than millions of abused, neglected, and abandoned children have had to endure over the ages.

No. I wouldn't support children being forced to have surgery.
 
"One might suspect the offer cannot reasonably be refused, reflecting power imbalances" does not mean "definite coercion."

Do you consider Workfare to be coercion too?

How about employment in general? I'm "forced" to work for others if I want to have money to pay bills and feed my family? My worker places contingencies of our arrangement on my successful performance of the things it wants done. Is this coercion? Does my employer therefore "have all the power imbalance" just because he's the one cutting the checks?

Thanks for your citations, but the idea that a welfare contingency is automatic coercion is ridiculous. Thinking of coercion that way casts doubt on the validity of all sorts of otherwise completely valid contractual agreements.
Sorry, but no. Cherry-picking the semantics of three words... which could just as easily be interpreted opposite of what how you choose to interpret them... does not equate to disproval. Legal lessons of definition from Bill Clinton ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") were ridiculed then, and are still ridiculous now. Taken overall, the points and citations stand.
 
I don't care about fine semantic distinctions that you think are important, particularly not as bait. Reproduction is a sexual activity that involves sex.

In common sociologic parlance, "reproductive activities" includes any non-cash-producing activities toward the health and perpetuation (that word/aspect is where the term derives) of a family or group, including food production storage and preparation, sanitation and other group supporting activities that do not generate cash income. For examples, this can include informal education for children, basic physical child care and washing clothing.


I dunno where the semantics debate began or if this is directly relevant to that exchange, but I thought I'd note such.
 
Last edited:
There is a simple solution. All males born must have a reversible vasectomy at birth.
Then all children must begin parenting classes at about 7th grade and continue till 12th grade.
All couples who want to have children...must pass a written or verbal parenting skills test. If they pass, then the male can have a vasectomy reversal.
If at anytime a couple (or as an individual - whichever applies) is found guilty of abuse, neglect, or abandonment...the guilty parent or parents must be permanently sterilized.

Sound cruel? It's no more cruel than millions of abused, neglected, and abandoned children have had to endure over the ages.

I see alot more potential problems than solutions here. The overwhelming numbers in which immigrants will overtake citizens for one. Religious debates by Catholics, Muslims, and Evangelicals among others. The at home births and hiding of children from the government as has happened in other countries with such laws. Lawsuits for wrongful death (youre putting millions of babies under a surgical procedure you're bound to have deaths). Has any research taken place on the liklihood of reversal/ damage to the reproductive abilities of males whove had this procedure before a certain age? Its not feasable and even if it didnt break several natural laws and go against several constitutional rights would you be paying for it? How about the funerals of the boys who dont make it? The wrongful death suits? The suits later on when these boys prove capable fathers but the reversal doesnt work?

I see alot more problprobl
 
Sorry, but no. Cherry-picking the semantics of three words... which could just as easily be interpreted opposite of what how you choose to interpret them... does not equate to disproval. Legal lessons of definition from Bill Clinton ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") were ridiculed then, and are still ridiculous now. Taken overall, the points and citations stand.

No they don't. People are required to meet a standard to receive money. They don't meet said standard. They do not receive the money.

Not coercion.
 
Sorry, but no. Cherry-picking the semantics of three words... which could just as easily be interpreted opposite of what how you choose to interpret them... does not equate to disproval. Legal lessons of definition from Bill Clinton ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") were ridiculed then, and are still ridiculous now. Taken overall, the points and citations stand.

The definitions you posted did not demonstrate that benefit contingencies equal coercion. Further, my examples highlight the absurdity of calling voluntary agreements coercion just because the person doesn't really want to make the trade, but feels compelled to. I don't really want to go to work many days, compared to how much I'd like to stay home, but I'm compelled to go because I need the income. You didn't answer my questions. Is employment coercion, according to what you shared? What about workfare?
 
LOL it's your type of ideology which keeps the rest of us paying for other people's children.
:lol: My type of ideology, eh? You haven't grasped anything I've said, have you? If you had, you would realize that I'm actually not that far off from you, but you... because I am not in strict lock-step with you... choose to see any deviation whatsoever as being diametrically opposed.
 
The definitions you posted did not demonstrate that benefit contingencies equal coercion. Further, my examples highlight the absurdity of calling voluntary agreements coercion just because the person doesn't really want to make the trade, but feels compelled to. I don't really want to go to work many days, compared to how much I'd like to stay home, but I'm compelled to go because I need the income. You didn't answer my questions. Is employment coercion, according to what you shared? What about workfare?

Somehow, this concept is beyond comprehension for some people.

:lol: My type of ideology, eh? You haven't grasped anything I've said, have you? If you had, you would realize that I'm actually not that far off from you, but you... because I am not in strict lock-step with you... choose to see any deviation whatsoever as being diametrically opposed.

You argue that it's coercion and it's not.

It's really that simple.
 
Somehow, this concept is beyond comprehension for some people.



You argue that it's coercion and it's not.

It's really that simple.
You're wrong, but you seem to enjoy it, so I'll leave you to it.

Nice dodge at avoiding my point that... overall, not just on the definition of 'coerce'... we are not that far off. Well, either consciously avoiding it or unable to understand it. Whichever.
 
I don't think that you should have to get a license to have children, but I do think that taking someone's ability to have children away should be a valid option if they have proven themselves unable to take care of the children they have.
 
The definitions you posted did not demonstrate that benefit contingencies equal coercion. Further, my examples highlight the absurdity of calling voluntary agreements coercion just because the person doesn't really want to make the trade, but feels compelled to. I don't really want to go to work many days, compared to how much I'd like to stay home, but I'm compelled to go because I need the income. You didn't answer my questions. Is employment coercion, according to what you shared? What about workfare?

It is coercion. Your job sets the number of hours you work and the general labor you will put forth, but doesnt regulate you outside of your cubicle or office. There is already a stipulation on the TANF program that any child born during the use of TANF is ineligible for cash and child care assistance benefits for life. The foodstamps and Medicaid put a rediculously lenient number of children before benefits quit increasing, capping at 10 children. Its funny that that number is also where several states end child support requirements including my own NV. Basically telling man to go knock up 10 girls or more to be free from financial responsibility. Putting in the sterilization is overstepping it. Has your job ever made you undergo a surgical procedure? Cash recipients have to work under TANF for benefits and have tp comply wirth a ruleset that even longstanding case managers are often confussed by. Its coercion and gender discrimination as this would likely be applied moreso to females than their male counterparts when often times the male counterparts are more the cause of poverty than the women. Its both coercion and discrimination but also dangerous. Should mommy die during the tubal ligation or afterwards due to infection where would the kids go? Foster care to be drugged by bigPharma, beaten by Joe.Blow and his wife who care about the cash and free housecleaners more than the childs welfare, and be cast aside by the already overburdened social workers? Because that would be the better option when compared to a loving single mother or two parents with financial insecurities. Sterilization is a bad idea no matter which way ya spin.it.
 
There are two factors here. First, I think that parents ought to know what the hell they're getting into and what is expected of them, so requiring licensing or classes or something isn't a bad idea. However, let's be realistic, there's no reasonable way to enforce such a thing, nobody has to ask permission to breed and you really can't stop them. That does mean that a lot of unfit and unqualified people will end up breeding because biology permits it, unfortunately.
 
I see alot more potential problems than solutions here. The overwhelming numbers in which immigrants will overtake citizens for one. Religious debates by Catholics, Muslims, and Evangelicals among others. The at home births and hiding of children from the government as has happened in other countries with such laws. Lawsuits for wrongful death (youre putting millions of babies under a surgical procedure you're bound to have deaths). Has any research taken place on the liklihood of reversal/ damage to the reproductive abilities of males whove had this procedure before a certain age? Its not feasable and even if it didnt break several natural laws and go against several constitutional rights would you be paying for it? How about the funerals of the boys who dont make it? The wrongful death suits? The suits later on when these boys prove capable fathers but the reversal doesnt work?

I see alot more problprobl

I totally agree. But that brings us back to the stark reality... we are all powerless over other people. People do what they do. Evolution will have to work these things out.

Absurd as my suggestion is...it's no more absurd than so many believing that if there is enough consequences inflicted on people...for not behaving in a certain way...eventually they'll stop doing what they do.

But we know that's not true. There's too many examples to the contrary. There are 7 billion people on the planet, who are...adapting to various shifts in their environments. Some environments are more civilized than others. But yet inside the most civilized of societies lurks some very uncivilized folks.

It looks like to me that one person's cure for our social ills ...is the creation of a disease for others in a same respective society.
 
This government intrusion is unconstitutional and violates all natural law...
 
Well, I'm basically playing devil's advocate. I don't necessarily agree with mandatory sterilization. I would like to hear some GOOD reasons why we shouldn't do it though.

Okay. Whom do you trust to decide who should be sterilized and who shouldn't? Do you trust that such a program, once instituted, would be limited to strictly income-based determination?
 
Back
Top Bottom