• 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
you should freely have as many children as you can afford

but once you start imposing costs on the rest of us by breeding when you cannot pay for your spawn then the rest of us should have some say in your activities that impose costs on us

I'm disturbed that rhetoric employed by German eugenicists is taking root here.
 
Ironically, you unconsciously allow it when you bail out EVERY last poor idiot who has a child he or she cannot afford.

It reminds me of these kids who grow up to be teen parents, jailbirds, and delinquents when their parents impart nothing to them. Just let them do whatever they want. "Parenting".

Sometimes kids who grow up to be teen parents, jailbirds, and delinquents come from good homes in which "normal" and "fair" and, yes, "good" were modeled. Don't forget those parents who gave their all but yet had to deal with recalcitrant rebels and "bad seeds."
 
I definitely think it would be interesting. And hey - less government.

Ignore the mess it'd make. Government and taxpayer money can fix it. Apparently liberals think that it's always in supply.

What happens if someone has a child without a license Gipper?
 
What happens if someone has a child without a license Gipper?

Well, what happens in other circumstances in which a license is required but not held as required?
 
What about someone with chronic paranoid schizophrenia and alcohol dependence?

What about a woman with Bipolar Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder who has already had three children for which she cannot effectively care (and they've been removed by the state and placed elsewhere)?

Mental illness, addiction, personality disorders, poverty... all of these things put children through hell. Why is the right to keep reproducing so sacrosanct?

Please tell me you aren't arguing in favor of that stance. The level of barbarism in this thread is staggering and disgusting.
 
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.

LOL

I wish more than anything that we can keep the idiots from birthing - but we just have to tolerate them, anyway . . . because it's just impossible to control such a thing.
 
I wish more than anything that we can keep the idiots from birthing - but we just have to tolerate them, anyway . . . because it's just impossible to control such a thing.

Should we have to take care of the idiots' children for them, or should we leave the children to suffer their idiot parents?
 
Should we have to take care of the idiots' children for them, or should we leave the children to suffer their idiot parents?

I just have to know--are you a parent yoursef? Are you a theorist or a practictioner?
 
No benefits.
And the children involved, what will happen to them then? The "unlicenced" children should not be forced to suffer.


Let's grow some consciences here, please.
 
I just have to know--are you a parent yoursef? Are you a theorist or a practictioner?

In between. Due date: Aug. 22

And don't make fun of me just because my alias is Neomalthusian. :wink:
 
Going after those individuals you cited with sterilization practices.

Well think about this: Would you rather approve of the sterilization of a person with serious impairments, or take care of his/her child after several years of abuse and/or neglect?

I realize that on a personal level this is a false dichotomy but on a societal level it is not.
 
Licensing these things is far to intrusive.
I've floated the idea of making, state benefits for the 1st child "free" with the 2nd (and subsiquent) children being done on loan, which has to be paid back after the child/children reaches the age of majority(18).

It adds a consequence, but not an inhumane one.
 
Well think about this: Would you rather approve of the sterilization of a person with serious impairments, or take care of his/her child after several years of abuse and/or neglect?

I realize that on a personal level this is a false dichotomy but on a societal level it is not.

I know people (including family) with serious impairments, and I have some myself, and know the history of eugenics. My answer is unequivocally, I would be against sterilization, period. My family fought against professionals overextending themselves to do what they thought was best for our family by breaking us up. So no, I do not have any sympathy with your work.

I will not refrain from calling what you are asking as something that is pure evil. I mean that with all of my heart and soul.
 
And the children involved, what will happen to them then? The "unlicenced" children should not be forced to suffer.


Let's grow some consciences here, please.

So where does it end? Every bastard created out there gets a full ride on my coattails?

I'll pass. There has to be some eggs broken to make this omelet. Once people realize that stupidity of this level essentially earns a death warrant if you don't have family that will let you leech, either they'll adjust their attitudes or they'll be made examples of in the effort that the next crop of idiots learn the lesson.
 
I know people (including family) with serious impairments,

So do I.

and I have some myself,

So do I, probably.

and know the history of eugenics.

So do I.

My answer is unequivocally, I would be against sterilization, period. My family fought against professionals overextending themselves to do what they thought was best for our family by breaking us up. So no, I do not have any sympathy with your work.

I will not refrain from calling what you are asking as something that is pure evil. I mean that with all of my heart and soul.

You might be taking the question a bit personally then. Kids damaged prenatally by substance abuse, or by abuse and neglect after they were born, tend to be somewhat unwanted, by their own parents or anyone else in society. As a result, they often grow up with significant cognitive/emotional/behavioral abnormalities that they then carry forward themselves. It's one thing to "have issues," because everyone does, but it's another to be an utter train wreck and then have children that you turn into train wrecks. That's pretty much a social contagion. Call me evil all you want... the people who actually do evil things tend to be quite damaged, often (though not always) by their own damaged parents.
 
Last edited:
Should we have to take care of the idiots' children for them, or should we leave the children to suffer their idiot parents?

You know something crazy - a lot of people have no clue if they're going to be a decent parent or not until they ARE a parent.
 
You know something crazy - a lot of people have no clue if they're going to be a decent parent or not until they ARE a parent.

That's all well and good, but did you know that some people (not many, but a very mentally ill few) don't know even know they're going to be parents until they are parents? That's for real. Some people are so sick they don't even realize they're pregnant. Should we be guarding their reproductive rights as sacrosanct?

Could we at least all agree that people adjudicated disabled be sterilized? If not, I would say our emotions are overtaking the rational parts of our brains.

In fact I think emotions overtake our brains somewhere in this process of becoming parents no matter what. I can't tell you how many people I know who just went and got pregnant because they felt compelled. Not because it made particular sense. And those are people who happen to be relatively good parents.

I think we need to be willing to let just a LITTLE bit of logic and reasoning enter into the decision to reproduce.
 
Last edited:
So let me recap a bit here.

1. Everyone, before getting pregnant has to get a license. The procedure and qualifications for which have not been discussed in much detail, as far as I can see. IMO, this would have to cover everyone. Regardless of socio-economic status or it's discriminatory. Everyone should have to go through the steps to qualify. So before say a Donald Trump or a senator/congressman, hedge fund trader or doctor could procreate, they too would have to qualify and get a license.

2. The people who get pregnant without a license who have kids? What's the penalty? No benefits. So what happens to kids who were not licensed? They starve, go homeless and now we have a greater problem than before.

3. Sterilization has been brought up. In exchange for benefits. There have also been posts advocating for eugenics.

4. A DNA database was suggested.

Kind of amazing, Brave New World stuff, as has been mentioned too.

EDIT for clarity.
 
Last edited:
So where does it end? Every bastard created out there gets a full ride on my coattails?

I'll pass. There has to be some eggs broken to make this omelet. Once people realize that stupidity of this level essentially earns a death warrant if you don't have family that will let you leech, either they'll adjust their attitudes or they'll be made examples of in the effort that the next crop of idiots learn the lesson.

It's never ok to advocate something that you know will make innocent children suffer when there is an alternative. Here in Australia, I pay approx 23-25% Tax on income earned and a 1.5% Medicare Levy. I don't go without any essentials and have more than enough money to live on. I don't live outside my means and i don't waste a lot of money. I also still manage to provide financial sponsorship towards 4 childrens education and part living expenses outside of Australia. If i had the option of earning more income on a lesser tax bracket just for me but at the expense of someone less fortunate than me then i would refuse. I understand others don't feel the same way :shrug:
 
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.

As an adoptive father, I had to ask permission of a bunch of different people on 2 continents.

But in general, I don't think you'd be able to enforce it unless you forced abortions on those who got pregnant without a license.
 
so let me recap a bit here.

1. Everyone, before getting pregnant has to get a license. The procedure and qualifications for which have not been discussed in much detail, as far as I can see. IMO, this would have to cover everyone. Regardless of socio-economic status or it's discriminatory. Everyone should have to go through the steps to qualify. So before say a Donald Trump or a senator/congressman, hedge fund trader or doctor could procreate, they too would have to qualify and get a license.

This might be evil of me, but I don't think Donald Trump, senators/congressmen, or hedge fund traders should qualify or get a license. Just flat out. If you've sold your soul like they have, you've nothing left to give to a child. ;)

3. Sterilization has been brought up. In exchange for benefits. Advocating for eugenics.

Sterilization for benefits does not equate to Eugenics. I can't even tie those together. This leaves sterilization optional and benefits optional. It's a voluntary trade.
 
It's never ok to advocate something that you know will make innocent children suffer when there is an alternative. Here in Australia, I pay approx 23-25% Tax on income earned and a 1.5% Medicare Levy. I don't go without any essentials and have more than enough money to live on. I don't live outside my means and i don't waste a lot of money. I also still manage to provide financial sponsorship towards 4 childrens education and part living expenses outside of Australia. If i had the option of earning more income on a lesser tax bracket just for me but at the expense of someone less fortunate than me then i would refuse. I understand others don't feel the same way :shrug:

I would be completely fine if people stayed "on the dole" when the dole is completely charity-based. People that wanted to help the less fortunate who breed other less fortunate babies who breed other less fortunate babies...can do so under their own volition. I myself would have no part of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom