• 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
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.

What are "eligibility technicians?" Is that a fancy way to say social workers? As if they're all so reliable? Like I said, who is going to pay for this HUGE workload? Do you realize the amount of work and paperwork that would be?

OMG! I can just IMAGINE the complications that would arise! :shock:
 
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.
Psychopaths aren't worthwhile members so the entire premise of your argument is flawed. Also, I don't take cookies from psychopaths, duh.
 
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.

I'm not saying there are no such programs, I'm saying "what if there aren't?"

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 don't think it would "screw up society," I think it could decrease the "screwed up" already in society.

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.

I don't think you can guarantee the latter, but I see what you're saying.

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.

I really think, especially this day and age, that it's mostly class differences and that these are mistaken for race differences.
 
What are "eligibility technicians?" Is that a fancy way to say social workers?

No. Social workers are paid even more than eligibility techs. Eligibility technicians are entry-level data crunchers who determine eligibility for public assistance.

Like I said, who is going to pay for this HUGE workload?

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

Do you realize the amount of work and paperwork that would be?

Initially it would be an influx. In the long run it might reduce the need for eligibility techs to review benefit applications.
 
Well, we we could stop encouraging people who cannot afford them by not giving additional benefits for additional children. And before all the autocrats say it never happens that way, it happens that way......

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
 
Moderator's Warning:
Getting a little heated in here folks. Let's tone it down a notch and discuss the topic only, not each other. Thanks.
 
I'm not saying there are no such programs, I'm saying "what if there aren't?"
And in response to that question, I said, "the next step would be working on a more effective foster care and adoption system."

I don't think it would "screw up society," I think it could decrease the "screwed up" already in society.
I think it would for the reasons I stated in my previous posts.

I don't think you can guarantee the latter, but I see what you're saying.
Okay.

I really think, especially this day and age, that it's mostly class differences and that these are mistaken for race differences.
I complete disagree with that. I think that the racial component to policies that affect certain classes are either consciously or unconsciously ignored by many people within society. When a policy significantly affects a particularly race or ethnicity, then it's a race/ethnicity issue whether or not that race/ethnicity just happens to be within the affected class.
 
I put "undecided" because I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I don't want the government to have that much control over my life. On the other hand, it would take care of rampant breeding by welfare mothers, plus so many other problems.

It's funny you started this thread - there was an idiot on I-95 the other day, zipping in and out of traffic, weaving, causing people to slam on their brakes, etc. He was driving really erratically. He got off at our exit, and we saw a small child in the back seat. Anybody who's ever been on I-95 knows what a zoo that place is, 24/7. And to be driving this way with a child in the car? I told my husband that very thing - that not everybody should be able to breed.
 
I complete disagree with that. I think that the racial component to policies that affect certain classes are either consciously or unconsciously ignored by many people within society. When a policy significantly affects a particularly race or ethnicity, then it's a race/ethnicity issue whether or not that race/ethnicity just happens to be within the affected class.

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.
 
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.

Not necessarily...

There is a lot of things you may own and cannot do whatever you want with it.

A child, in this society, is pretty much a slave until it reaches adulthood or whatever age.
 
Last edited:
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.

The only reason it seems illogical, is because we try to prevent the problems which are a result of the inept and unprepared breeding. If government would just take a hands-off approach, and leave people to solve their own problems, we wouldn't see the problems associated with poor choices.
 
I voted yes, there are way too many uncontrolled kids today. Many parents simply turn them loose on society.
 
I put "undecided" because I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, I don't want the government to have that much control over my life. On the other hand, it would take care of rampant breeding by welfare mothers, plus so many other problems.

It's funny you started this thread - there was an idiot on I-95 the other day, zipping in and out of traffic, weaving, causing people to slam on their brakes, etc. He was driving really erratically. He got off at our exit, and we saw a small child in the back seat. Anybody who's ever been on I-95 knows what a zoo that place is, 24/7. And to be driving this way with a child in the car? I told my husband that very thing - that not everybody should be able to breed.

It would have zero control over responsible parents.

Also, since licensure would be hard to monitor, just do it like I suggested - unlicensed mothers get no assistance. It's that simple. Unlicensed drivers can still get behind the wheel and start a car. If they get in a wreck, they're screwed.

Same applies here.
 
Not necessarily...

There is a lot of things you may own and cannot do whatever you want with it.

A child, in this society, is pretty much a slave until it reaches adulthood or whatever age.

What can you not do anything you like with, excluding things that harm others?

I find that view sick, personally.
 
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.
 
I voted yes, there are way too many uncontrolled kids today. Many parents simply turn them loose on society.

many times its only ONE parent

and that is part of the problem
 
For those of you who said yes....what would be the punishment for getting pregnant without a license?
 
It would have zero control over responsible parents.

That's the next dimension of this discussion: maybe it should.

There are plenty of responsible, productive people who are, I would presume, nonetheless pretty much oblivious to the needs of their children at each developmental stage. They don't know how to soothe a crying newborn, they talk to their infants/young children like they're adults (really they're more like cavemen), they try to be "friends" with their teenagers, and so on and so forth.
 
Yup, I'd require it. Income and intelligence would be 2 immediate factors I'd use as criteria.


Eugenics and economic prejudice all in one sentence. :roll:
 
For those of you who said yes....what would be the punishment for getting pregnant without a license?

No baby shower.

Hm, no, that's no good.

Mandatory child development classes?

Hm. Good question.
 
For those of you who said yes....what would be the punishment for getting pregnant without a license?

might be a good time for government provided abortion?
 
Yup, I'd require it. Income and intelligence would be 2 immediate factors I'd use as criteria.

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.
 
many times its only ONE parent

and that is part of the problem

I think they should have to show they can support the child including healthcare with a strong financial plan laid out for higher education.
 
I balk at having government issuing licenses to have children. The implications, of how it could possibly be enforced and regulated, are quite chilling.

What are the criteria? Passing a course? Proof of income? How much is enough? Does a doctor have to check for license? Does the hospital? What if people have kids without a license? What is the penalty?

Then we have opened the door to other things like age? Is there a cutoff? Health? Testing for genetic diseases? See where I'm going?

I agree, there are way too many poorly prepared, negligent and abusive parents.

Maybe we'd be better of requiring full blown parenting classes in high school? Middle school? We have health and sex ed. Why not parenting? I know. That's probably a whole kettle of fish, but just throwing it out there.

I just can't cotton to having the government in our bedrooms.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom