• 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
Serenity said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that when someone requires taxpayer assistance to raise their children, it greatly includes government. Thus, all this "all you libertarians blah blah blah more government control" spew is blatantly false. Requiring licenses involves government no more than it does now, and maybe even removes it to an extent. The problem is that all the big-tent liberals want to ignore that aspect and assume that welfare is a right, and that there's no public sector involvement in getting that first-of-the-month check.
 
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...
I get the desire to regulate reproduction. I've definitely made offhand remarks about making people take tests before they become parents after witnessing some particularly bad parenting in the families of some friends and acquaintances (or just looking at commercials for 'Teen Mom' on MTV). When it goes from just a frustrated remark to an actual policy consideration though, my tune changes.

As far as dissuading and preventing people from becoming parents too soon, I think that can be done much in the same way education about safe sex has had a great deal of success in preventing the spread of STDs. I can't really speak a lot on what specific solutions I would advocate because I just haven't done a lot of research on the issue. Regardless, I think the best solution is to help people make the right choices rather than let government decide who does and doesn't have kids.
 
lizzie said:
You must not be familiar with the booming white trash population that we have in this part of the country. ;)
Click to expand...

someone has to watch WWE and Jerry Springer!!
 
TurtleDude said:
someone has to watch WWE and Jerry Springer!!
Click to expand...

OMG- at work, a couple of weeks ago, I felt like I was in a Jerry Springer nightmare. My Gawd, some people make me embarrassed to be a human. Cripes!
 
So people are actually advocating making the entire population sterile until such a time that the government deems them "acceptable" to have children? Because of SOME irresponsible people who make up maybe 15% of the entire population? Hmmmm.
 
Wait..... question..... would you have to be a citizen of the US to obtain this license?
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Medical technology is part of it, but not even the biggest part. It was the oil boom. Oil helped us produce tons of food and ship it to all corners of the world.

ChrisL said:
I wonder if you are pro life or pro choice?
Click to expand...

I feel quite conflicted on that issue. I ideologically distance myself significantly from pro-life nut cases on the religious right. Abortion itself though is kind of painful for me to think about. I don't have a strong belief about the point at which a ZEF becomes a life worthy of its own human rights independent of the mother that carries it. In short, I've put an immense amount of thought into it over the years and I just don't really know.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I get the desire to regulate reproduction. I've definitely made offhand remarks about making people take tests before they become parents after witnessing some particularly bad parenting in the families of some friends and acquaintances (or just looking at commercials for 'Teen Mom' on MTV). When it goes from just a frustrated remark to an actual policy consideration though, my tune changes.

As far as dissuading and preventing people from becoming parents too soon, I think that can be done much in the same way education about safe sex has had a great deal of success in preventing the spread of STDs. I can't really speak a lot on what specific solutions I would advocate because I just haven't done a lot of research on the issue. Regardless, I think the best solution is to help people make the right choices rather than let government decide who does and doesn't have kids.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that clearly works. You'd have a better chance crossing all of your fingers, surrounding yourself in rabbits' feet and putting horseshoes around your neck. All you're doing is wishing.

You've even said that there's a problem, but you would have absolutely nothing remotely resembling a plan to correct it. Your plan is akin to wishing on a star and going to bed to dream of unicorns, rainbows, and the days when people suddenly aren't f'n stupid.
 
lizzie said:
OMG- at work, a couple of weeks ago, I felt like I was in a Jerry Springer nightmare. My Gawd, some people make me embarrassed to be a human. Cripes!
Click to expand...

Ha. I have the same thoughts when I meet some of my kids' families. Holy crap. I think, "No wonder you act the way you do, little boy!"
 
celticwar17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is because you don't really own them, regardless of how they're considered legally. They have rights to happiness and care, which are recognized, even as we continue to call them possessions.

They are living things. I am guardian to my cat, not her owner. I don't care what the law says. That is the reality of it, and people who treat their animals otherwise are or should be prosecuted.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Medical technology is part of it, but not even the biggest part. It was the oil boom. Oil helped us produce tons of food and ship it to all corners of the world.
Click to expand...

I think medical technology has played a HUGE role, and the biggest. Look at maternal and fetal death rates. I know that sounds cold, and I would never want to deny anyone medical care. This is just an observation on my part.



I feel quite conflicted on that issue. I ideologically distance myself significantly from pro-life nut cases on the religious right. Abortion itself though is kind of painful for me to think about. I don't have a strong belief about the point at which a ZEF becomes a life worthy of its own human rights independent of the mother that carries it. In short, I've put an immense amount of thought into it over the years and I just don't really know.
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone could possibly call themselves "pro choice" if they are trying to take the choice of having a child away from some people. Just doesn't sound right, doesn't add up and sounds incredibly hypocritical IMHO.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I get the desire to regulate reproduction. I've definitely made offhand remarks about making people take tests before they become parents after witnessing some particularly bad parenting in the families of some friends and acquaintances (or just looking at commercials for 'Teen Mom' on MTV). When it goes from just a frustrated remark to an actual policy consideration though, my tune changes.

As far as dissuading and preventing people from becoming parents too soon, I think that can be done much in the same way education about safe sex has had a great deal of success in preventing the spread of STDs. I can't really speak a lot on what specific solutions I would advocate because I just haven't done a lot of research on the issue. Regardless, I think the best solution is to help people make the right choices rather than let government decide who does and doesn't have kids.
Click to expand...

I think some particularly self-destructive people should be offered money in exchange for undergoing long-term error-free birth control procedures. That keeps it voluntary, at least. That's why I love the idea of the link I included in my first post on this topic.
 
Gipper said:
Yeah, that clearly works. You'd have a better chance crossing all of your fingers, surrounding yourself in rabbits' feet and putting horseshoes around your neck. All you're doing is wishing.

You've even said that there's a problem, but you would have absolutely nothing remotely resembling a plan to correct it. Your plan is akin to wishing on a star and going to bed to dream of unicorns, rainbows, and the days when people suddenly aren't f'n stupid.
Click to expand...
Okay, so if my plan is just "rainbows", what research/studies do you have to demonstrate the effectiveness of your plan?
 
Neomalthusian said:
I think some particularly self-destructive people should be offered money in exchange for undergoing long-term error-free birth control procedures. That keeps it voluntary, at least. That's why I love the idea of the link I included in my first post on this topic.
Click to expand...
I think that's a better idea than requiring licenses although I still like my ideas better. :lol:
 
holy christmas 14 pages. i'm too drunk to read through it now. lol

btw, i would support this in theory if i believed the government wasn;t completely inept. if people need a license to cut hair, it makes logical sense that some sort of standard should be in place for having children. afterall, i can think of no more important job than that.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes. That is because you don't really own them, regardless of how they're considered legally. They have rights to happiness and care, which are recognized, even as we continue to call them possessions.

They are living things. I am guardian to my cat, not her owner. I don't care what the law says. That is the reality of it, and people who treat their animals otherwise are or should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
I don't really know the point of the distinction... it's seems to you the distinction is purely for sentimental value.
Own or not own... whatever

Parents have total control of their children as long as they arn't "harming" them and other various regulation like school attendance.

Owning something does not mean you can do whatever you want with it, necessarily... you can still own something and be regulated by it.
 
ChrisL said:
I think medical technology has played a HUGE role, and the biggest.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to be argumentative, but I think our society post-oil will look quite a bit like society pre-oil. Even medical technology owes itself to our master energy source. Where would medicine be without our oil-based plastics and our our oil-based vehicles that whisk people away to hospitals at maximum speed to save their lives? Really ask yourself where the species would be without oil.

I don't see how anyone could possibly call themselves "pro choice" if they are trying to take the choice of having a child away from some people. Just doesn't sound right, doesn't add up and sounds incredibly hypocritical IMHO.
Click to expand...

Then I wouldn't qualify as pro-choice in your mind, which is fine. But I will not be associated with pro-life psychos on the religious right either. Let it be known.
 
If we're going to talk about sterilization, we should just sterilize those who are collecting social services and have more than one child IMO.
 
celticwar17 said:
I don't really know the point of the distinction... it's seems to you the distinction is purely for sentimental value.
Own or not own... whatever

Parents have total control of their children as long as they arn't "harming" them and other various regulation like school attendance.
Click to expand...

To say that you own something means that its needs and feelings don't require or deserve any regard beyond selfish motivations. That is the distinction.
 
What happens if someone gets pregnant without a license? Are we going to force sterilize people until they pass parenting qualifications or just force abortions in women that conceive without a license?

As much as I would love for only qualified individuals to be the ones having children, it is not my place to dictate who is "qualified" nor is it the government's place to do so in regards to reproducing with your own body (this isn't the same as adopting and meeting adoptions standards). I also have serious problems with how such a law may be enforced.
 
Last edited:
Alyssa said:
holy christmas 14 pages. i'm too drunk to read through it now. lol

btw, i would support this in theory if i believed the government wasn;t completely inept. if people need a license to cut hair, it makes logical sense that some sort of standard should be in place for having children. afterall, i can think of no more important job than that.
Click to expand...

Or we could just get rid of all the stupid licenses people have to get.....
 
Neomalthusian said:
Don't mean to be argumentative, but I think our society post-oil will look quite a bit like society pre-oil. Even medical technology owes itself to our master energy source. Where would medicine be without our oil-based plastics and our our oil-based vehicles that whisk people away to hospitals at maximum speed to save their lives? Really ask yourself where the species would be without oil.
Click to expand...

I thought I was the argumentative one? ;)



Then I wouldn't qualify as pro-choice in your mind, which is fine. But I will not be associated with pro-life psychos on the religious right either. Let it be known.
Click to expand...

Lol . . . okay, I'll make note of that. Note to self . . .
 
Alyssa said:
holy christmas 14 pages. i'm too drunk to read through it now. lol
Click to expand...

You don't deserve to have children.


Just kidding!







I'm drunk too. Well... not really. Getting there maybe. South Australian Pinot Grigio. :party
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes. That is because you don't really own them, regardless of how they're considered legally. They have rights to happiness and care, which are recognized, even as we continue to call them possessions.

They are living things. I am guardian to my cat, not her owner. I don't care what the law says. That is the reality of it, and people who treat their animals otherwise are or should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

:lol: :doh But people who cannot (or will not?) care for (including feed, house and clothe) their children should not be prosecuted, they should be given gov't rewards (welfare) for that failure instead? :roll:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
:lol: :doh But people who cannot (or will not?) care for (including feed, house and clothe) their children should not be prosecuted, they should be given gov't rewards (welfare) for that failure instead? :roll:
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It depends on the situation, as it does with animal care. Things happen. It is not always because the caretaker is irresponsible. If it is because they are irresponsible, then that is a different matter, and again, the approach needed will vary.

These are not simple black-and-white issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom