• 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
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...
But you don't have to do that as parents. Any parent can do otherwise.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about owning a pet, a company or land?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...

Could you imagine any situation in which you think someone should be mandatorily sterilized? /curious
 
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...

There is a difference between extending aid to needy families and child abuse.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Could you imagine any situation in which you think someone should be mandatorily sterilized? /curious
Click to expand...

No. The only possible scenario I can envision is an extremely predatory rapist or child molester, but in that case, they should never be let out of prison, so there's no need to sterilize them.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is where you are wrong. The law, stating who is "entitled" to welfare, is indeed black and white and differs 100% from the laws concerning pet care conditions. If your dog is not well cared for you will NEVER get handed a gov't "help" check.
 
IMO, if they are broke to start with, they shouldn't be able to have kids until they can properly care for them. If they were doing OK financially, and lost their job, for Pete's sake, we can't take the kids from them. Besides, people who usually fall down after financial stability, find themselves stable again before long.

It's the people that flat out refuse to work that I have a problem with.
 
ecofarm said:
What about owning a pet, a company or land?
Click to expand...

That is also how I feel about pets. A company or land is somewhat similar, in that it does have ethical considerations in terms of employees, society, and the environment that I believe the owner is obligated to consider.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is where you are wrong. The law, stating who is "entitled" to welfare, is indeed black and white and differs 100% from the laws concerning pet care conditions. If your dog is not well cared for you will NEVER get handed a gov't "help" check.
Click to expand...

Just because that is the law doesn't mean it's the truth of the matter, just like the fact that the law considering my cat a possession doesn't mean she is.
 
digsbe said:
There is a difference between extending aid to needy families and child abuse.
Click to expand...

Then why not extend that aid to needy citizens, not requiring them to add a child to the mix in order to get that aid? This is the primary failure of the welfare system - it encourages (requires) children to get "help". If an single adult makes $12K/year they get NO Medicaid (unless disabled) but add a child and then they do get Medicaid - does that make ANY sense?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No. The only possible scenario I can envision is an extremely predatory rapist or child molester, but in that case, they should never be let out of prison, so there's no need to sterilize them.
Click to expand...

What about someone with chronic paranoid schizophrenia and alcohol dependence?

What about a woman with Bipolar Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder who has already had three children for which she cannot effectively care (and they've been removed by the state and placed elsewhere)?

Mental illness, addiction, personality disorders, poverty... all of these things put children through hell. Why is the right to keep reproducing so sacrosanct?
 
Baralis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for providing the details as to why enforcement and regulation would be chilling with the bolded portion an outright horror. Your introduction of population control via government approval is exactly what I was hinting at. Once the power to license is granted, where is the end? A full blown eugenics program?

Some of the responses in this thread are surprising. We should not ever put the government in control of approving who and who doesn't have children.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
That is also how I feel about pets. A company or land is somewhat similar, in that it does have ethical considerations in terms of employees, society, and the environment that I believe the owner is obligated to consider.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we're supposed to call ourselves guardians and not owners of such? Isn't this just a little PC and anti-private property? I am not the owner of my pet/company/land but The Guardian. I dunno, seems grandiose. I find it a bit self-serving, as if to distance oneself from any sense of 'enslavement'. Grandiose and self-serving terminology for the purpose of PC and crapping on private property? Nah, I'll pass on that.
 
Last edited:
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...


My answer is no of course not, actually HELL NO lol

while i can understand the desire, this type of infringement on freedom is no good

heres a question

what happens if someone has a child with out a license? then what
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Just because that is the law doesn't mean it's the truth of the matter, just like the fact that the law considering my cat a possession doesn't mean she is.
Click to expand...

It is indeed the truth with the current power structure in DC. I agree that laws are subject to change, but we (via our congress critters) seem quite willing to simply borrow from "later" to consume today. 2/3 of federal spending is "entitlements".
 
Well I'm convinced. I don't think we should have licenses to be doctors either. I think you should be able to treat anyone who wants you to treat them by saying, "I'm a doctor, I can treat you".
 
Neomalthusian said:
Could you imagine any situation in which you think someone should be mandatorily sterilized? /curious
Click to expand...

Yes, those who are institutionalized and who are potential victims of those institutions' attendants.
 
Gina said:
Ok, thanks for providing the details as to why enforcement and regulation would be chilling with the bolded portion an outright horror. Your introduction of population control via government approval is exactly what I was hinting at. Once the power to license is granted, where is the end? A full blown eugenics program?

Some of the responses in this thread are surprising. We should not ever put the government in control of approving who and who doesn't have children.
Click to expand...

Ever. E-v-e-r.
 
nota bene said:
Ever. E-v-e-r.
Click to expand...

Ironically, you unconsciously allow it when you bail out EVERY last poor idiot who has a child he or she cannot afford.

It reminds me of these kids who grow up to be teen parents, jailbirds, and delinquents when their parents impart nothing to them. Just let them do whatever they want. "Parenting".
 
Gipper said:
Well I'm convinced. I don't think we should have licenses to be doctors either. I think you should be able to treat anyone who wants you to treat them by saying, "I'm a doctor, I can treat you".
Click to expand...

Haha, interesting challenge. We tend to require licenses to do damn near everything EXCEPT the most important thing in any human's life, which is to be its parent.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Haha, interesting challenge. We tend to require licenses to do damn near everything EXCEPT the most important thing in any human's life, which is to be its parent.
Click to expand...

I definitely think it would be interesting. And hey - less government.

Ignore the mess it'd make. Government and taxpayer money can fix it. Apparently liberals think that it's always in supply.
 
Objective-J said:
My answer is no of course not, actually HELL NO lol

while i can understand the desire, this type of infringement on freedom is no good

heres a question

what happens if someone has a child with out a license? then what
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Why are people so quick to secede their reproductive rights?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
In some cases, yes, and that should be harshly punished. Children are not possessions.
Click to expand...

How can you punish motivations and sub-par parenting?

Eve though I may agree with you... this kind of thinking leads to some scary things, which makes me wonder if It is correct after all. It leads to situations like Brave New World... where the only justified means of actually solving the parenting problem is have all children being raised by government institutions. Our current laws suggests a parents does have ownership over their child so it prevents this from happening, but what if they didn't?
 
Huh. Honestly, I'm torn on this one.

Biggest problem I see is how it would be implemented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom