• 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
Gipper said:
Yup, I'd require it. Income and intelligence would be 2 immediate factors I'd use as criteria.
Click to expand...

And what are going to do, go by people's IQs? How are you going to determine one's "intelligence" and whether or not they have enough of it to raise a child? Do they have to get straight A's in school? What's your criteria?
 
nota bene said:
Income's easy to measure; intelligence is not. There are incredibly bright and talented folks with little formal education and dummies with doctorates. So that's problematic.
Click to expand...

If you have the intellectual capabilities to earn a PhD, suffice it to say that you could learn the basics of being a good parent.

Or...that PhD also grants you the earning power to hire people that will assist you in child raising.

Either choice is ten steps up from these ghetto and trailer park sluts who pop kids out with absolutely no way to grant a chance in life to a child.
 
Neomalthusian said:
No. Social workers are paid even more than eligibility techs. Eligibility technicians are entry-level data crunchers who determine eligibility for public assistance.



The same people who already are paying for this huge workload.



Initially it would be an influx. In the long run it might reduce the need for eligibility techs to review benefit applications.
Click to expand...

How are you going to determine someone's eligibility to be a parent by "crunching numbers"? I don't get it. Unless you are planning on determining "good parenthood" by financial means alone?
 
Gipper said:
If you have the intellectual capabilities to earn a PhD, suffice it to say that you could learn the basics of being a good parent.

Or...that PhD also grants you the earning power to hire people that will assist you in child raising.

Either choice is ten steps up from these ghetto and trailer park sluts who pop kids out with absolutely no way to grant a chance in life to a child.
Click to expand...

So you have to have a PhD to have a child? :roll: No offense, but that's dumb. This is getting really far fetched now (as if it wasn't to begin with - LOL).
 
Gipper said:
If you have the intellectual capabilities to earn a PhD, suffice it to say that you could learn the basics of being a good parent.

Or...that PhD also grants you the earning power to hire people that will assist you in child raising.

Either choice is ten steps up from these ghetto and trailer park sluts who pop kids out with absolutely no way to grant a chance in life to a child.
Click to expand...

Hell Gip- you don't have to go to so much trouble. Just don't pay them for breeding and feeding, and they will either figure out how to live, or take themselves out of the equation. :lol:
 
Neomalthusian said:
I think this is case-in-point to what I was saying. If I implement a policy that is based on income, let's say for the sake of argument that people under the poverty line are suddenly prohibited from having children until they demonstrate a year of earning above the poverty line... and this policy ends up affecting 30% of blacks, 25% of Latinos, and 18% of whites.... is that a race-based policy? Is it a race issue? I understand if people turn it into one, but that's where the mistake happens.
Click to expand...
I don't know that it's a "race-based policy", but I would say that the policy is definitely a race (and ethnicity) issue. The reason I distinguish is because "race-based" signifies intent to me where I'm not sure it's there. However, even if a policy is not intended to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, it can still be a race/ethnicity issue if it affects certain racial and ethnic groups more than it does others.

Ultimately, with a policy like the one described by the OP, not only would the lower class decrease in numbers more so than middle and upper classes, but blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans among others would decrease in numbers much more so than non-Hispanic whites. Because such a policy would affect certain groups more than others, that policy becomes an issue for those groups. In all fairness though, race and class would not be the only concerns. Those with mental illnesses, physical disabilities, lower education and so on would be affected as well making the policy an issue for several historically marginalized groups. It's just not a good idea.
 
Gipper said:
America would be better if it had more economic prejudice.

I apologize for not being in love with an entitlement society.
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with entitlements?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't know that it's a "race-based policy", but I would say that the policy is definitely a race (and ethnicity) issue. The reason I distinguish is because "race-based" signifies intent to me where I'm not sure it's there. However, even if a policy is not intended to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, it can still be a race/ethnicity issue if it affects certain racial and ethnic groups more than it does others.

Ultimately, with a policy like the one described by the OP, not only would the lower class decrease in numbers more so than middle and upper classes, but blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans among others would decrease in numbers much more so than non-Hispanic whites. Because such a policy would affect certain groups more than others, that policy becomes an issue for those groups. In all fairness though, race and class would not be the only concerns. Those with mental illnesses, physical disabilities, lower education and so on would be affected as well making the policy an issue for several historically marginalized groups. It's just not a good idea.
Click to expand...

You must not be familiar with the booming white trash population that we have in this part of the country. ;)
 
lizzie said:
Hell Gip- you don't have to go to so much trouble. Just don't pay them for breeding and feeding, and they will either figure out how to live, or take themselves out of the equation. :lol:
Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying. That's all you have to do - no license, no help. I could support an agency that does background searches to determine eligibility to reproduce.

Otherwise, if you have a kid, you're on your own.
 
I don't think income should be so much a factor. They should, of course, be able to prove that they can provide a home, and food, and basic needs, but growing up poor doesn't make you a bad person. So many people start out poor, and end up making a great life for themselves.
 
joko104 said:
Of course not. That so many answered yes shows just how many people want the government to have total control over people.

The great revolutions for individual freedoms and winning individual libertiy won in the late 1700s thru the early 1920s is a rapidly vanishing era unique in world history.
It is surprising how many people want, even demand, a totalitarian government to control, restrict and regulate every aspect of their lives.
Click to expand...

It always astounds me to see that the people who loudly campaign for less Government interference in their lives are often the same people who are quite happy to give that same Government such absolute power in instances like those being discussed here. So many are blind to their own logical inconsistencies and can't see that by advocating yes here they are contradicting their otherwise freedom principles.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't know that it's a "race-based policy", but I would say that the policy is definitely a race (and ethnicity) issue. The reason I distinguish is because "race-based" signifies intent to me where I'm not sure it's there. However, even if a policy is not intended to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, it can still be a race/ethnicity issue if it affects certain racial and ethnic groups more than it does others.

Ultimately, with a policy like the one described by the OP, not only would the lower class decrease in numbers more so than middle and upper classes, but blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans among others would decrease in numbers much more so than non-Hispanic whites. Because such a policy would affect certain groups more than others, that policy becomes an issue for those groups. In all fairness though, race and class would not be the only concerns. Those with mental illnesses, physical disabilities, lower education and so on would be affected as well making the policy an issue for several historically marginalized groups. It's just not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Everything in that last paragraph is exactly why it's a great idea.
 
Gipper said:
Everything in that last paragraph is exactly why it's a great idea.
Click to expand...
You realize that psychopaths would be disqualified from procreating under those terms, right?
 
Serenity said:
It always astounds me to see that the people who loudly campaign for less Government interference in their lives are often the same people who are quite happy to give that same Government such absolute power in instances like those being discussed here. So many are blind to their own logical inconsistencies and can't see that by advocating yes here they are contradicting their otherwise freedom principles.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because having a child you cannot afford and depending on 200 million taxpayers to support it COMPLETELY removes any government interference...

Explains a few things.
 
ChrisL said:
How are you going to determine someone's eligibility to be a parent by "crunching numbers"? I don't get it. Unless you are planning on determining "good parenthood" by financial means alone?
Click to expand...

Eligibility for some benefits is already determined from data that is not necessarily just financial.

Theoretically though, it would require more manpower to assess suitability for parenthood, no doubt about it. Currently that job only exists among those trying to adopt. So yeah we'd have to beef up on that effort.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What can you not do anything you like with, excluding things that harm others?

I find that view sick, personally.
Click to expand...
I may agree... but that doesn't mean it isn't how it is right now.

But yea there are billions of things. You aren't allowed to drive a car everywhere, not allowed have a bedroom without windows, etc. there are all sorts of regulations on almost everything you own.

You own a pet, but you arn't allowed to harm it/torture it.
 
Serenity said:
It always astounds me to see that the people who loudly campaign for less Government interference in their lives are often the same people who are quite happy to give that same Government such absolute power in instances like those being discussed here. So many are blind to their own logical inconsistencies and can't see that by advocating yes here they are contradicting their otherwise freedom principles.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's an actual logical inconsistency. The more I read arguments from the "less government" crowd on and off DP, the more I think that "less government" is just a cover for control issues. By "control issues", I mean that they want to have total control over their lives with zero government inference, BUT they also want total control over everyone else's lives through government intervention. The reason I say this is because they usually argue for "less government" only when it government interferes in something they WANT to do. When it's something they despise, they usually want the government to regulate it.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Eligibility for some benefits is already determined from data that is not necessarily just financial.

Theoretically though, it would require more manpower to assess suitability for parenthood, no doubt about it. Currently that job only exists among those trying to adopt. So yeah we'd have to beef up on that effort.
Click to expand...

"Beef up?" Sorry, but you're talking about a TON of people!!! I think that this sounds like something out of a sci-fi flick. ;)
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't know that it's a "race-based policy", but I would say that the policy is definitely a race (and ethnicity) issue. The reason I distinguish is because "race-based" signifies intent to me where I'm not sure it's there. However, even if a policy is not intended to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, it can still be a race/ethnicity issue if it affects certain racial and ethnic groups more than it does others.

Ultimately, with a policy like the one described by the OP, not only would the lower class decrease in numbers more so than middle and upper classes, but blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans among others would decrease in numbers much more so than non-Hispanic whites. Because such a policy would affect certain groups more than others, that policy becomes an issue for those groups. In all fairness though, race and class would not be the only concerns. Those with mental illnesses, physical disabilities, lower education and so on would be affected as well making the policy an issue for several historically marginalized groups. It's just not a good idea.
Click to expand...

I truthfully do understand the seeming outrageousness of ever suggesting reproduction be regulated.

Ultimately, it's up to the people to recognize that parenthood is many ways the most important "job" a parent will ever have. And yet there's no "hiring process" for this job. It's completely open-door, anything-goes. Population-control aside, the mere desire to contain (rather than proliferate) severe intergenerational social problems behooves us to continue considering whether there is a way to more strongly dissuade or prevent people from becoming parents before they're ready to handle the responsibilities.
 
ChrisL said:
"Beef up?" Sorry, but you're talking about a TON of people!!! I think that this sounds like something out of a sci-fi flick. ;)
Click to expand...

I'd do the job. Hell, the portion of my taxes that went toward the effort... I'd feel really GOOD about.
 
Gipper said:
Yeah, because having a child you cannot afford and depending on 200 million taxpayers to support it COMPLETELY removes any government interference...

Explains a few things.
Click to expand...

The OP asked should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children?... I don't see where it was asked specifically relating to affordability.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I truthfully do understand the seeming outrageousness of ever suggesting reproduction be regulated.

Ultimately, it's up to the people to recognize that parenthood is many ways the most important "job" a parent will ever have. And yet there's no "hiring process" for this job. It's completely open-door, anything-goes. Population-control aside, the mere desire to contain (rather than proliferate) severe intergenerational social problems behooves us to continue considering whether there is a way to more strongly dissuade or prevent people from becoming parents before they're ready to handle the responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Well, if we wanted to be honest about population problems, it has NOTHING to do with people having babies. It has everything to do with advances in medical technology. People are SUPPOSED to die.
 
Baralis said:
I think that could be quite simple given a little time. Each person born is allowed 1.0 point and each child they produce counts as 0.5. Therefor each child costs their parent a total of 1 point worth (0.5 per parent). This way a person could have a child with two different people and not be limited to a single partner yet we would only allow 1 child per person overall lowering the population over time. Once a person reaches their allocated 1.0 limit they are fixed. Given time a DNA database could in minutes verify both parents of a child.
Click to expand...

We could, of course, simply sterilize everybody before they can breed (never mind the developmental consequences) and do everything by database and decree. Heck, we could take humans out of the equation entirely. We already have the technology.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I'd do the job. Hell, the portion of my taxes that went toward the effort... I'd feel really GOOD about.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you are pro life or pro choice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom