View Poll Results: Should the right to bear children be regulated?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes to help keep the poulation down so hunting lands don't get overcrowded!

    4 6.78%
  • Yes for other reasons

    15 25.42%
  • No this is dumb

    31 52.54%
  • Hmmm maybe

    9 15.25%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 94

Thread: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    In terms of controlling population numbers, this kind of policy is not necessary. Humanity is already well on its way to a tragedy of the commons, and nature will balance it out, either with famine, plague, natural disaster, or all of the above. In terms of social responsibility and who "should" have kids, I see no way of uniformly putting into policy something so subjective.

    You can't base it on money because rich people can be lowsy parents. You can't base it on age because the human lifespan has almost tripled in the past 500 years and the fertility boundary is constantly being pushed further.

    I guess my basic concern is, who decides?

    I'm in favour of eliminating programs such as baby bonuses which provide incentives for people to have kids for financial reasons. I am also sadly, but admittedly, in favour of mandatory birth control for people on long-term welfare, although in practice I think its implementation would be highly controversial.

    Fertility programs are something I take issue with because of the numbers of children often produced, and financial screening should be mandatory for people who undertake these procedures. It shouldn't be as simple as whether or not you have the money for the procedure itself.

    I guess in the end, I'm in favour of it in theory, but in practice I just don't see how it could happen.

  2. #62
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,027

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by MsCommonSensiality View Post
    No, you really can't. So many people have children that they can't take care of, that they abuse and neglect, that they raise to be complete jerks. It's very rare that you find a competant set of parents. Why is it so wrong for me to wish that only good people were able to reproduce?
    And who decides who and how they are regulated? You? A committee of politicians? The way you control this is by not giving them govt benefits. No benefits will modify their behavior. Why should I pay irresponsible people to have babies. Let them rot, no WIC, no free healthcare, nada....
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  3. #63
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,609

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by MsCommonSensiality View Post
    I see what you're saying. But what about the women who just have a home-birth? Not the good kind, either.
    Also, it's not that difficult to satisfy the state. Parents are only required to provide the minimum care for their kids. A roof over their head, some clothes on their backs and some food in their stomachs. There's nothing in the minimum requirements that says anything about nurturing and teaching. It's sad.
    No matter where you have the baby, you're not going to keep it a secret from the state so it's really irrelevant. Those child-welfare people are going to come around and check on the conditions and if it's 27 kids living in a cardboard box, the state needs to take away the majority of them.

    Unfortunately, nurturing and teaching are hard to quantify so it's not something we can say "this person is doing it" and "this person is not". All we can really do is control the elements that we can control and hope that, with the family reduced to a manageable size, those things will be easier to achieve.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  4. #64
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Fertility programs are something I take issue with because of the numbers of children often produced, and financial screening should be mandatory for people who undertake these procedures. It shouldn't be as simple as whether or not you have the money for the procedure itself.
    This is why the answer to your question "who decides?" should be "no one."

    The solution, as cold and heartless as it might seem to some, is to keep government out of the picture entirely--no welfare, no WIC, no medicaid, no AFDC, nada. People can (and perhaps should) support any one of several charitable organizations that can fulfill these same roles, and the more people understand that they are at the mercy of their neighbor's charity the more likely they are to exercise caution in their own behavior.

    The answer is to make all such questions irrelevant. Remove the safety net and let people feel the full weight of their bad decisions, and let them revel in the full glory of their good decisions.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    This is why the answer to your question "who decides?" should be "no one."

    The solution, as cold and heartless as it might seem to some, is to keep government out of the picture entirely--no welfare, no WIC, no medicaid, no AFDC, nada. People can (and perhaps should) support any one of several charitable organizations that can fulfill these same roles, and the more people understand that they are at the mercy of their neighbor's charity the more likely they are to exercise caution in their own behavior.

    The answer is to make all such questions irrelevant. Remove the safety net and let people feel the full weight of their bad decisions, and let them revel in the full glory of their good decisions.
    I come from a different culture than you, one where socialized systems are common place, accepted, and expected within the national framework. I'm against big government, but I'm also in favour of functional government that serves as a member of the community.

    If the government is not actively helping members of the community who are in genuine need (much like a neighbour would), then there is no point in forming any kind of coherent nationalism. We will all just be flapping in the wind. Given that, there should be no need for taxes at all, no need for national infrastructure projects, no need for public schools, because every person should depend on their own weight to carry them through.

    I might agree with you if it was 200 years ago and modern technology weren't separating people more and more from one another. When I grew up, children actually played in the streets. And now? Children stay inside and surf the net, or play video games. Few people take the time to know their neighbour anymore, so frankly I think it's a little late to revert to depending on a community support structure. The government is now, more often than not, the difference between life and death for some people.
    Last edited by Orion; 04-09-09 at 11:01 AM.

  6. #66
    User MsCommonSensiality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 08:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    139

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    And who decides who and how they are regulated? You? A committee of politicians? The way you control this is by not giving them govt benefits. No benefits will modify their behavior. Why should I pay irresponsible people to have babies. Let them rot, no WIC, no free healthcare, nada....

    Yeah, that would be ideal. Except that's not only hurting the parents, but it's hurting the babies, too.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
    -Martin Luther King, Jr


  7. #67
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,027

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by MsCommonSensiality View Post
    Yeah, that would be ideal. Except that's not only hurting the parents, but it's hurting the babies, too.
    Too bad, "for the children" doesn't justify everything.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  8. #68
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I come from a different culture than you, one where socialized systems are common place, accepted, and expected within the national framework. I'm against big government, but I'm also in favour of functional government that serves as a member of the community.
    Government is not a member of the community. Structurally, it cannot be a divisible member of the community, but is rather an expression of the community. Philosophically, government tends to act as an impediment to the advancement of a community.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    If the government is not actively helping members of the community who are in genuine need (much like a neighbour would), then there is no point in forming any kind of coherent nationalism. We will all just be flapping in the wind.
    Government has a limited set of functions that it is competent to carry out. They are most succinctly stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    The function most immediately relevant here is "promote the general Welfare." Note that it does not say "promote the welfare of all citizens," or "promote the welfare of each and every citizen," but merely the "general" welfare. Government exists to preserve and promote conditions which allow individuals the freedom and the opportunity to prosper; it's involvement in the welfare of people is necessarily broad and imprecise. Welfare programs, being as they are payments and subsidies to individuals, are specific and precise. Yes, government can do such things, but that is poor justification for saying government should do such things, particularly when even the Preamble of the Constitution suggests that government should not do such things (providing for the "general Welfare" is separate, distinct, and demonstrably in opposition to providing for the "specific welfare.").

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I might agree with you if it was 200 years ago and modern technology weren't separating people more and more from one another. When I grew up, children actually played in the streets. And now? Children stay inside and surf the net, or play video games. Few people take the time to know their neighbour anymore, so frankly I think it's a little late to revert to depending on a community support structure.
    Government welfare is a "community support structure", albeit a defective and dysfunctional one. The question is not whether the community should support its less fortunate members, but how.

    There is no "reversion" to be had, merely a change from a dysfunctional support structure to a functional one.

    The fact that welfare programs have grown rather than declined over the years is categorical proof of one thing: they do not achieve their goals. Welfare is a demonstrable failure. Continuing welfare is thus social madness.
    Last edited by celticlord; 04-09-09 at 11:35 AM.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Government is not a member of the community. Structurally, it cannot be a divisible member of the community, but is rather an expression of the community. Philosophically, government tends to act as an impediment to the advancement of a community.


    Government has a limited set of functions that it is competent to carry out. They most succinctly stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States:

    The function most immediately relevant here is "promote the general Welfare." Note that it does not say "promote the welfare of all citizens," or "promote the welfare of each and every citizen," but merely the "general" welfare. Government exists to preserve and promote conditions which allow individuals the freedom and the opportunity to prosper; it's involvement in the welfare of people is necessarily broad and imprecise. Welfare programs, being as they are payments and subsidies to individuals, are specific and precise. Yes, government can do such things, but that is poor justification for saying government should do such things, particularly when even the Preamble of the Constitution suggests that government should not do such things (providing for the "general Welfare" is separate, distinct, and demonstrably in opposition to providing for the "specific welfare.").


    Government welfare is a "community support structure", albeit a defective and dysfunctional one. The question is not whether the community should support its less fortunate members, but how.

    There is no "reversion" to be had, merely a change from a dysfunctional support structure to a functional one.

    The fact that welfare programs have grown rather than declined over the years is categorical proof of one thing: they do not achieve their goals. Welfare is a demonstrable failure. Continuing welfare is thus social madness.
    Wow talk about overly complicated.

    The problem with welfare is that it is easy to get and there is too much waste. The answer is not eliminating welfare but reforming it to be more functional.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    The answer is not eliminating welfare but reforming it to be more functional.
    The only functional form of government welfare is "none".

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •