View Poll Results: A license to have children?

Voters
122. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    31 25.41%
  • No

    85 69.67%
  • Undecided

    6 4.92%
Page 6 of 80 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 792

Thread: A license to have children [W:81]

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethlehem Bill View Post
    sure, ok, and we are getting sidetracked from the original point of the thread

    but the only argument i am seeing in these posts is that

    because welfare fraud exists --> we should legislate and regulate reproductive rights based on intelligence

    the conclusion does not follow the premise
    I disagree that welfare fraud is the premise.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    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.
    How would you go about doing something like that? Sounds literally impossible IMO.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    It's interesting that it's mostly libertarians and conservatives that support such a huge intrusion by government into individual's lives. I guess I can take their whole "too much government' argument even LESS seriously than I already do. It's becoming clearer and clearer by the day that what they really mean by "too much government" is "I want to do what I want and screw everyone else" - as I suspected. Also, the contempt some people seem to have for those who they think don't deserve children is disturbing to the point that I think those expressing it are a threat to society. There's clearly a huge emotional component going into a lot people's opinions on this topic and emotion is definitely not a good basis for intruding on people's lives this severely.

    As for the topic specifically, since the people who would be primarily effected by this would be non-whites and the poor (of all races/ethnicities), a policy regulating who can have kids would just increase racism and classism, increase white and wealth privilege and severely intensify racial and class tension. In other words, it would disrupt society significantly. For instance, I really can't imagine a lot of black people would ever be able to let old wounds heal knowing that their government enacted a policy that would prevent many of them from having children due to poverty within the population. I mean, that's really sick. I can't believe people are supporting this.

    That said, there is a problem with parents who can't raise children. In order to address this problem, I propose we come at it from a place of compassion rather than a place of contempt - a place of understanding rather than a place of superiority and supremacy. As others have suggested, we should promote parenting classes in a way that research shows will be effective. We should also improve the education system in general to help people make better life choices in general. There are plenty of things that we can do to help people make better decisions. That's the responsible way to handle the problem. Requiring a license to have children is the dangerous way.
    A libertarian SHOULD support licensing because of all the additional government it could potentially negate. Also, qualification regulation benefits all involved.

    Or do you want a master plumber doing your taxes?

  4. #54
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    How would you go about doing something like that? Sounds literally impossible IMO.
    Ideally there would be a reversible sterilization procedure performed at birth.

    Otherwise, we could also make welfare contingent upon sterilization. The charity that pays addicts to sterilize themselves is a noble idea. There are a lot of options once you get past the visceral reaction that this whole topic is just too too inhumane to even contemplate.

  5. #55
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    They can die in the street, for all I care. I'm sick of being robbed, and I'm tired of subsidizing stupidity.
    This is one of the sickest, most disturbing things I have ever read in my entire life. Sentiments like this destabilize society. This is some genuinely psychopathic stuff right here - a complete lack of empathy and utter disregard for human life. I think I'm finally starting to understand where you're coming from, Gipper.

  6. #56
    Student Bethlehem Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Last Seen
    03-10-16 @ 10:50 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    294

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I look at results, honestly, not feel good theory. You can not call a permanenet gov't dependent underclass "progress". A gov't check does not work as sunstiotute for "daddy", yet that is the basis for much of our current welfare system - add cash to support that kind of breeding. No requirements for a HS education, remaining sober or following any personal improvement plan.

    Marriage: America's Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

    An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States | Brookings Institution
    a lot to work with here, please bear with me

    1) what "feel good theory" are you referring to?

    2) i did not call a permanent gov't underclass "progress". where did you see that? or are you creating a strawman here?

    3) i did not say that a gov't check works as a "substitute for daddy". where did you see that? or are you creating yet another strawman here?

    4) in what way is your strawman daddy substitute theory the "basis of much of our current welfare system". id like to see a source for when welfare legislation was introduced, and the authors of that legislation saying that the intent was to provide a "daddy substitute" via a government stipend. i suspect you wont be able to find such a source.

    5) youre right, we do not require that our country's poor be educated in order to receive assistance with dealing with poverty. if you want to make that argument, id be willing to listen

    6) finally, your own source refutes your argument. you claim on one hand that "daddy substitute" is the basis for much of welfare legislation. then you offer the article that indicates that married couples are much less poor than single parent families. yet, the article shows that over 90% of children were born to married couples from 1930 through 1975. so if children were being born to married couples over 90% of the time when welfare legislation was written, how is it possible or even logical to suggest that the intention at that time was to provide a "daddy substitute" - when almost every child in the country already had a father?

    please think this through. try to address the arguments that i make in my posts - not strawmen arguments that others have advanced elsewhere.

  7. #57
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    That said, there is a problem with parents who can't raise children. In order to address this problem, I propose we come at it from a place of compassion rather than a place of contempt - a place of understanding rather than a place of superiority and supremacy.
    Compassion and understanding does not cure FASD, protect them from abusive alcoholic parents, provide for their various needs or teach them the many skills they need to grow up healthy and happy.

    As others have suggested, we should promote parenting classes in a way that research shows will be effective.
    What way is that? Promoting, encouraging, suggesting are weak strategies to try to inform people who don't want to be informed, and who just want to party.

    We should also improve the education system in general to help people make better life choices in general. There are plenty of things that we can do to help people make better decisions. That's the responsible way to handle the problem. Requiring a license to have children is the dangerous way.
    Dangerous for whom? Ever think about the dangers kids face when they're brought into the world by profoundly incompetent people?

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Ideally there would be a reversible sterilization procedure performed at birth.

    Otherwise, we could also make welfare contingent upon sterilization. The charity that pays addicts to sterilize themselves is a noble idea. There are a lot of options once you get past the visceral reaction that this whole topic is just too too inhumane to even contemplate.
    The problem is that, yes, sterilization can be reversed, but not always. Also, why would you want to sterilize everyone because of some people's irresponsible behaviors? Sounds a little bit extreme IMO.

  9. #59
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,360

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    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.
    Ahhh...I can just imagine hidden pregnancies, hidden families, hidden children...... Someone should write a book about that...

    A license to have children [W:81]-among-hidden-jpg


  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    This is one of the sickest, most disturbing things I have ever read in my entire life. Sentiments like this destabilize society. This is some genuinely psychopathic stuff right here - a complete lack of empathy and utter disregard for human life. I think I'm finally starting to understand where you're coming from, Gipper.
    Good.

    Maybe someday you'll be better off when you realize that some people could only become a net bonus to society if they were soylent green.

    If you want your taxes to float along the dead wood, fine. I'll fight my damnedest to make it not happen to me.

Page 6 of 80 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •