• 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
Bethlehem Bill said:
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
Click to expand...

I disagree that welfare fraud is the premise.
 
Alyssa said:
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.
Click to expand...

How would you go about doing something like that? Sounds literally impossible IMO.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ChrisL said:
How would you go about doing something like that? Sounds literally impossible IMO.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gipper said:
They can die in the street, for all I care. I'm sick of being robbed, and I'm tired of subsidizing stupidity.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Dangerous for whom? Ever think about the dangers kids face when they're brought into the world by profoundly incompetent people?
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Alyssa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...I can just imagine hidden pregnancies, hidden families, hidden children...... Someone should write a book about that...

among-the-hidden.jpg
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChrisL said:
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...

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.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that the solution should be compassion and understanding. I said that we address the problem from a place of compassion and understanding. I then suggested that we implement research backed education problems among other solutions so that parents won't become abusive and that children will have their needs met.

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.
Click to expand...
I said that we should implement strategies that are backed by research as effective. Inherent in that argument is that the strategies won't be weak.

Dangerous for whom?
Click to expand...
I covered that when I said, "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."

Ever think about the dangers kids face when they're brought into the world by profoundly incompetent people?
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why I said, "That said, there is a problem with parents who can't raise children."
 
So what would be the punishment for creating a baby without a license?
 
Gipper said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nah, I like my worldview better. I'm not a psychopath so I don't have the luxury of disregarding human life for my own self interest.
 
interesting discussion so far

ill check back tomorrow to see if any cogent arguments have emerged

regarding why americans should forfeit their rights to have children at their own discretion
 
Bethlehem Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am simply showing you the "amazing coincidence" between the creation of the great society welfare programs (1965 on) and the out of wedlock childbirth rate. Is that simply correlation or causation? I agree that was not the stated intent, but certainly appears to be the unintended result, of these welfare programs. The idea that children being raised by one parent (often not working, or educated) and a gov't check are being "helped" defies logic. I would say, that if half the living parents are present, then they should get half of the gov't help - thus encouraging marriage/cohabitation, rather than the current system.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I didn't say that the solution should be compassion and understanding. I said that we address the problem from a place of compassion and understanding. I then suggested that we implement research backed education problems among other solutions so that parents won't become abusive and that children will have their needs met.

I said that we should implement strategies that are backed by research as effective. Inherent in that argument is that the strategies won't be weak.
Click to expand...

Okay, but serious question: What if no such program exists that is shown by research to be effective? Your suggestion implicitly assumes that such a program exists out there that is effective. The social problems that underlie the abuse of children and the neglect of their needs is profound and pervasive. Basically I'm asking... what if your suggestion, reasonable and humane as it is, doesn't cut it?

I covered that when I said, "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.
Click to expand...

I disagree with every part of that except the classism part. It is absolutely classist, what we're talking about. The other types of prejudice are usually mistaken for class differences, in my opinion.
 
Well,

Do the parents own their children? Or are children independent beings at birth?

This is a question that has been bugging people for centuries... I think the concept of original sin was an attempt to explain it.
 
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 agree with that, of course, but I don't know if that is the right answer or not. Who is to say that these people will not abuse, neglect their children once they have their procedures reversed? There are NO guarantees, especially when it comes to something complicated like human beings. Just sounds a little too intrusive for my liking.

Another thing, that is exactly what it would be, government-controlled reproduction.
 
celticwar17 said:
Well,

Do the parents own their children? Or are children independent beings at birth?

This is a question that has been bugging people for centuries... I think the concept of original sin was an attempt to explain it.
Click to expand...

The idea of anyone owning another independent living thing is detestable on its face. At most, you are charged with being their guardian or care-taker. To say that ones own them means you may do whatever you like with them, and if that is true, there's no reason why slavery should be illegal.
 
Are we going to pay for psychiatrists to "examine" everyone before they are allowed to have their procedures reversed and have children? They are only people too and also prone to making errors.
 
ChrisL said:
I agree with that, of course, but I don't know if that is the right answer or not. Who is to say that these people will not abuse, neglect their children once they have their procedures reversed? There are NO guarantees, especially when it comes to something complicated like human beings. Just sounds a little too intrusive for my liking.
Click to expand...

It is intrusive. As I said earlier, it is essentially one of my greatest departures from libertarianism.

For the record, I do not think the people who oppose these ideas are being irrational or stupid. It's a huge dilemma. I have a pretty cold hard non-emotional viewpoint on countless issues. But when it comes to severely dysfunctional people's right to reproduce vs. their would-be children's right not to have to endure their parents' severe dysfunction, I just opt toward the children and wish to prevent them being brought into the situation in the first place.

I don't claim to know the best way to address the problem but, for starters, I wish it were not so taboo.
 
ChrisL said:
Are we going to pay for psychiatrists to "examine" everyone before they are allowed to have their procedures reversed and have children?
Click to expand...

No. Psychiatrists are medical and they're too expensive. The criteria would be examined by eligibility technicians, which state governments already employ to see if families legitimately qualify for the many benefits the state government administers or co-administers.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Nah, I like my worldview better. I'm not a psychopath so I don't have the luxury of disregarding human life for my own self interest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, congratulations. You're yet another cog to a worthless, hyper-dependent society that is a leech on worthwhile members...

...but you're not a psychopath. Good for you.

Here's a cookie. Now go share it with all of that selfish scum you support.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Okay, but serious question: What if no such program exists that is shown by research to be effective? Your suggestion implicitly assumes that such a program exists out there that is effective. The social problems that underlie the abuse of children and the neglect of their needs is profound and pervasive. Basically I'm asking... what if your suggestion, reasonable and humane as it is, doesn't cut it?
Click to expand...
I don't really buy the idea that there aren't any effective programs if only because there are already plenty of effective addiction, parenting and education programs. But if by some crazy chance, none would work on a certain part of the population, I would say that the next step would be working on a more effective foster care and adoption system. There is definitely no way that I would ever consider requiring licenses for parenting though. That's a good way to screw up society.

I disagree with every part of that except the classism part. It is absolutely classist, what we're talking about. The other types of prejudice are usually mistaken for class differences, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Regardless, I can 100% guarantee that a lot of people would see it as a race issue as well and I can 100% guarantee that it would severely increase racial tension to a point where any progress made in convincing the black population to let "old wounds heal" would go out the window for a lot of them. Moreover, the problem with the "it's class not race" argument is the class and race are often tied together so class issues are often race issues as well. It's not a matter of one or the other. It's a matter of both at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom