• 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
As much as I think the plot of the movie Idiocracy (see it you haven't) is becoming reality, the idea of licensing procreation is not possible without completely surrendering any personal soveriegnty we may have.

I know who should be able to have kids and who shouldn't, so if you want to make me the decider, I'll be happy to do it, but no one else.

I'll make sure only the "right people" have children.

How's that sound?
 
No. As much as I would not mind it, lol. It goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for. Maybe in Ancient Rome or WWII Nazi Germany. No way should this kind of fascist thinking be allowed here.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Agreed. No left people should procreate.
Click to expand...

When I choose, the right will be the left people, but of course, you won't pick me to choose, and i won't pick you to choose, and I don't trust anyone else to choose, so there will be no damn choosin', okay!
 
I would love to have that realistically possible - because I believe the main source of suffering in this world is from lousy parents causing emotional trauma to their children (many times, unseen).

But it is not realistic without taking away so much freedom that is would be ridiculous.


My solution is to stop rewarding people who have more children then they can afford - as poverty is probably the single biggest cause of the above mentioned abuse.

End welfare.

If people need food/shelter - give it to them. But only the minimum thyough government flop houses and soup kitchens. NEVER any money.

And provide full medical/dental care to all children that need it...but NOTHING except emergency medical/dental to these pathetic parents.


I would insist that these useless parents should have to have their pictures put on the web everytime they bring their children to a government shelter. But many of these losers probably would just let their kids starve rather then be face embarrassment.


Finally, society has to stop encouraging people to have children.

It should be considered a priviledge to have a child - not a right.

Something that only a few are qualified to undertake.

This nonsense that people just assume that the vast majority of people are good parents is completely wrong.

By the law of averages, 1/3 will be good at it, 1/3 will be adequate and 1/3 will suck at it.
 
Granted that 1/4th of people on this forum prefer China's government in relation to children - other than they want even more totalitarism than even China and China did not require a license - but there is no constitutional authority to legislate prohibiting having children other than for the mentally disabled.
 
DA60 said:
I would love to have that realistically possible - because I believe the main source of suffering in this world is from lousy parents causing emotional trauma to their children (many times, unseen).

But it is not realistic without taking away so much freedom that is would be ridiculous.


My solution is to stop rewarding people who have more children then they can afford - as poverty is probably the single biggest cause of the above mentioned abuse.

End welfare.

If people need food/shelter - give it to them. But only the minimum thyough government flop houses and soup kitchens. NEVER any money.

And provide full medical/dental care to all children that need it...but NOTHING except emergency medical/dental to these pathetic parents.


I would insist that these useless parents should have to have their pictures put on the web everytime they bring their children to a government shelter. But many of these losers probably would just let their kids starve rather then be face embarrassment.


Finally, society has to stop encouraging people to have children.

It should be considered a priviledge to have a child - not a right.

Something that only a few are qualified to undertake.

This nonsense that people just assume that the vast majority of people are good parents is completely wrong.

By the law of averages, 1/3 will be good at it, 1/3 will be adequate and 1/3 will suck at it.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is look at Africa to see that will not work. Heck any 3rd world country. Even here I have seen homeless people hiding in bushes and car ports having sex. Sex is a basic human need, so even if you took everything away it would not stop them. In the end only the children would suffer.
 
Black Manta said:
All you have to do is look at Africa to see that will not work. Heck any 3rd world country. Even here I have seen homeless people hiding in bushes and car ports having sex. Sex is a basic human need, so even if you took everything away it would not stop them. In the end only the children would suffer.
Click to expand...

Africa is TOTALLY different. There is massive poverty and a gigantic lack of birth control.

America is a very different situation.

In my opinion, most 'unqualified' couples will either be more careful and/or more likely to abort the pregnancy if they know that basically they are on their own if they go down that road.

Will it solve the problem? Of course not. But it will cut the poverty birthrate down. Plus, it will save taxpayers billions each year.



Many people are just lazy. And if you make everything easy for them - they will just do what they want and not worry about the consequences.

I say make it as difficult as possible on the parents - but make sure the children are given access to all the services they need...they should not be punished for having pathetic parents.


And btw - if there are irresponsible parents out there that read this and are offended...GOOD.
 
Last edited:
No i will not conform and get one, nor do i think this should exist at all.
 
DA60 said:
I would love to have that realistically possible - because I believe the main source of suffering in this world is from lousy parents causing emotional trauma to their children (many times, unseen).

But it is not realistic without taking away so much freedom that is would be ridiculous.


My solution is to stop rewarding people who have more children then they can afford - as poverty is probably the single biggest cause of the above mentioned abuse.

End welfare.

If people need food/shelter - give it to them. But only the minimum thyough government flop houses and soup kitchens. NEVER any money.

And provide full medical/dental care to all children that need it...but NOTHING except emergency medical/dental to these pathetic parents.


I would insist that these useless parents should have to have their pictures put on the web everytime they bring their children to a government shelter. But many of these losers probably would just let their kids starve rather then be face embarrassment.


Finally, society has to stop encouraging people to have children.

It should be considered a priviledge to have a child - not a right.

Something that only a few are qualified to undertake.

This nonsense that people just assume that the vast majority of people are good parents is completely wrong.

By the law of averages, 1/3 will be good at it, 1/3 will be adequate and 1/3 will suck at it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we sure put single mom's in the lap of luxury here in America, how could any woman pass up the opporuntity to get paid almsot nothing just for creating a life that she will be responsible for only for a couple of decades. She can do two whole years in a row on welfare, and five years in her whole life, so how could any woman not just go right out and get knocked up, the pay is just too good.

Being poor sucks, working or on welfare. The best chance any person has to get out frim under being poor is being single and work hard, getting married and having kids AFTER they get their lives going. But SO many people don't realize this reality until after it's too late.

Education is the best answer, but it is not a perfect answer.

Shutting off welfare is a terrible answer.
 
Allow me to translate:"Waah I don't like welfare and have a superiority complex, so lets commit a massive human rights violation". Limiting reproductive rights may be necessary in dire circumstances, but has zero place in a society with a low population density and replacement level birthrates. I see nothing more in this thread than a petty attempt at boosting the ego through dehumanization, there is no discussion of anything resembling policy.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
.

Shutting off welfare is a terrible answer.
Click to expand...

I am not proposing 'shutting off welfare'...just scaling it way back.

'Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid'.

Welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Providing adequate food, shelter, medical and dental to anyone who wants it for free is a 'terrible answer' to you?

Noted.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Africa is TOTALLY different. There is massive poverty and a gigantic lack of birth control.

America is a very different situation.

In my opinion, most 'unqualified' couples will either be more careful and/or more likely to abort the pregnancy if they know that basically they are on their own if they go down that road.

Will it solve the problem? Of course not. But it will cut the poverty birthrate down. Plus, it will save taxpayers billions each year.



Many people are just lazy. And if you make everything easy for them - they will just do what they want and not worry about the consequences.

I say make it as difficult as possible on the parents - but make sure the children are given access to all the services they need...they should not be punished for having pathetic parents.


And btw - if there are irresponsible parents out there that read this and are offended...GOOD.
Click to expand...

Great more abortions and you are throwing out the baby with the bath water for something that in natural to all humans. At some point it is not about the money. I agree welfare as it is needs work, but again we don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
 
Black Manta said:
Great more abortions and you are throwing out the baby with the bath water for something that in natural to all humans. At some point it is not about the money. I agree welfare as it is needs work, but again we don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Click to expand...

Before there is brain activity (10 weeks) - there is no baby...there is a fetus.

And I am not going to debate this.

You cannot have sentience without brain activity...not possible.


After there is brain activity - then it's a crime (imo).
 
for the working poor or nonworking people who experience a pregnancy and either cant afford an abortion or it goes against theor belief system??? Its a horrible idea to regulate who can and cannot be parnts. How many kids are in foster care who would be better off at home? Kids taken because the home didnt have furniture or because of a false report or a head injury on an infant that was totally accidental and the parents went to the hospital immediately? It takes months to years and years for reconcilliation to be approved. If the government tried to regulate who could have kids and who couldnt it would be a bigger mess than foster care by far! The most genial and loving and financially stable families on the outside are the poster families of murder-suicides, murderous couples and longwithstood child abuse. A form could make them look like pristine parents but in reality they will eventually snap under the pressure. Thats exactly why there isnt test or prerequisite for parenting. The response vs the plan is what counts not vice versa.
 
Absolutely not. Governments which take upon themselves the right to decide who should or should not reproduce rightly deserve their bloody and abusive reputations. Furthermore, the last thing we need is something else restricting our fertility rate - we are in trouble enough as it is.
 
Originally Posted by ChrisL
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.
Click to expand...

Neomalthusian said:
I know it does, but I've seen the extreme realities (not hypotheticals) that already exist everywhere out there. My line of work has exposed me to countless profoundly damaged people whose lives were utterly ruined by their monstrous parents.

It's not that I don't respect people's rights or that I want a big intrusive government. It's that I've just seen too many children whose basic human rights were trampled on by parents who never deserved to be parents, and the damage was permanent. Seeing such permanent damage tends to deaden one's belief in unconditional reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

I also have seen the realities of child abuse and am very concerned for those children . I think making birth control availble to anyone with no co pay is a step in the right direction.

Delaying parenthood until one wants to become a parent would cut down the number of "welfare" moms as well as the number of abortions that are occuring at the present time.

In the following study the poor used free contraceptives and unwanted pregnancies dropped dramatically.
<SNIP>

The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured.
They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.

When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert.
These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result,

reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.


The effect on teen pregnancy was striking:

There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.

There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally:
4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region,
Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
Click to expand...

Read more:

Study: Free birth control leads to way fewer abortions - CBS News
 
I would still be willing to consider a program that sterilizes those people who are collecting off the system who have more than one child and who have a history with the welfare department.

To play devil's advocate, I also wanted to bring another aspect into the discussion. People seem to be focusing on only sterilizing females. If you really think about it, it might be more successful to sterilize the men. It's a much less complicated procedure for men than women and I believe it is more effective too (I would have to check on this though).
 
Certainly interesting how most advocates of such a proposition center their arguments strictly on the income of the parents. The concern for the child's well being seems completely disingenuous.
 
a351 said:
Certainly interesting how most advocates of such a proposition center their arguments strictly on the income of the parents. The concern for the child's well being seems completely disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Well, how do you feel about those who are receiving social services, who keep having children that other people end up having to support? What would be bad about perhaps mandatory birth control or sterilization for those people? And only a temporary basis until they are no longer receiving those services and are able to care for themselves and a family?
 
ChrisL said:
Well, how do you feel about those who are receiving social services, who keep having children that other people end up having to support?

What would be bad about perhaps mandatory birth control or sterilization for those people?

And only a temporary basis until they are no longer receiving those services and are able to care for themselves and a family?
Click to expand...
I don't advocate for irresponsibility, but in the end I have no say-so in the matter.

Forced sterilization and other intrusive actions based on income only is simply a repulsive proposition in my eyes. There's quite a few wealthy couples out there who I feel would make lackluster parents as well, but as stated before, this proposition is largely based only on the perceived effects on one's pocketbook, not out of concern for the child's health or upbringing.

Sterilization isn't temporary. Also, restricting the reproductive rights of the poor sets a poor precedent in terms of social policy (Think "Class Warfare") and economic effects.
 
DA60 said:
Before there is brain activity (10 weeks) - there is no baby...there is a fetus.

And I am not going to debate this.

You cannot have sentience without brain activity...not possible.


After there is brain activity - then it's a crime (imo).
Click to expand...

Still think it's a really bad idea. And I am not debating abortion, I am talking about single moms in the place of baby's figuratively hence the common phrase.
 
a351 said:
I don't advocate for irresponsibility, but in the end I have no say-so in the matter.

Forced sterilization and other intrusive actions based on income only is simply a repulsive proposition in my eyes. There's quite a few wealthy couples out there who I feel would make lackluster parents as well, but as stated before, this proposition is largely based only on the perceived effects on one's pocketbook, not out of concern for the child's health or upbringing.

Sterilization isn't temporary. Also, restricting the reproductive rights of the poor sets a poor precedent in terms of social policy (Think "Class Warfare") and economic effects.
Click to expand...

Oh, but you're wrong. There are MANY sterilization procedures out there that are reversible. Of course it's not a 100% guarantee and is MUCH more successful in men, but I have typed reports about tubal ligation reversals in females many times.

I agree that poor/rich/middle class does not determine what kind of parent one will be. I would like to hear a valid reason though, as to why we shouldn't demand birth control or some sterilization procedure on those who continually have children and collect welfare to support those children.
 
From a logical point. Most of the mass murderers are from a well-to-do white demographic. So wealthy whites should not reproduce? Sounds sensible, eh?
 
ChrisL said:
Oh, but you're wrong. There are MANY sterilization procedures out there that are reversible. Of course it's not a 100% guarantee and is MUCH more successful in men, but I have typed reports about tubal ligation reversals in females many times.

I agree that poor/rich/middle class does not determine what kind of parent one will be. I would like to hear a valid reason though, as to why we shouldn't demand birth control or some sterilization procedure on those who continually have children and collect welfare to support those children.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am. I haven't done much research on the subject of sterilization thankfully.

Simply put, it's not your decision to make. Entities and individuals that receive tax dollars aren't subject to the will and dictate of John Q. Taxpayer by default you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom