• 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
So do I.



So do I, probably.



So do I.



You might be taking the question a bit personally then. Kids damaged prenatally by substance abuse, or by abuse and neglect after they were born, tend to be somewhat unwanted, by their own parents or anyone else in society. As a result, they often grow up with significant cognitive/emotional/behavioral abnormalities that they then carry forward themselves. It's one thing to "have issues," because everyone does, but it's another to be an utter train wreck and then have children that you turn into train wrecks. That's pretty much a social contagion. Call me evil all you want... the people who actually do evil things tend to be quite damaged, often (though not always) by their own damaged parents.

So to recap. You, presumably, with impairments or family with impairments, would support violations of basic human rights, and tell me I am taking it too personally when our people are going to be targeted by the professional class like they were for generations?
 
I corrected that to also, advocating for eugenics. I said that incompletely. My apologies.

They don't go together, but it has been mentioned that some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids because of the problems they will pass on. That is abhorrent to me. We've been down that path in the 20th century. We should not ever go down it again.

As for exchanging sterility for benefits, no. Can't go there either. There are plenty of people who take benefits because they lost a job or had a financial or health calamity, for instance. I don't agree to it no matter the circumstance, but maybe that is one some haven't considered.
 
Sterilization for benefits does not equate to Eugenics. I can't even tie those together. This leaves sterilization optional and benefits optional. It's a voluntary trade.

Uh huh. So, my brother, who is a great human being, by virtue of getting SSI and whatnot, should be sterilized.
 
That's all well and good, but did you know that some people (not many, but a very mentally ill few) don't know even know they're going to be parents until they are parents? That's for real. Some people are so sick they don't even realize they're pregnant. Should we be guarding their reproductive rights as sacrosanct?

Could we at least all agree that people adjudicated disabled be sterilized? If not, I would say our emotions are overtaking the rational parts of our brains.

In fact I think emotions overtake our brains somewhere in this process of becoming parents no matter what. I can't tell you how many people I know who just went and got pregnant because they felt compelled. Not because it made particular sense. And those are people who happen to be relatively good parents.

I think we need to be willing to let just a LITTLE bit of logic and reasoning enter into the decision to reproduce.

After saying all that you claim to want just a LITTLE bit of logic and reasoning to enter into the discussion of reproduction.

Meaning - you just want someone to side with you on forcing sterilizations and abortions because you don't like the idea of ever having to care for another person's child (never mind that you'll never be the one to DO it).

If it comes down to having to determine if someones' fit for pregnancy or parenting I certainly wouldn't want anyone with your selfish views to be calling those shots - if anything ever possibly encroaches on anything at all - you'll just oppose it because you're (what - rights? peace of mind? freedom?) is sacrosanct?

So - your tax money is sacrosanct and other people's right to reproduce is not . . . got it and filed it away under 'hypocrisy' for future reference.
 
Sounds like a bad idea.

I don't care for the idea of giving the government the right to tell who can or cannot have a child. I can see some of the reasoning for it, but I like to stay away from something that could be so easily abused given the right circumstances. Also, enforcing that seems like nothing short of a massive job; I doubt it could be properly enforced.
 
I would be completely fine if people stayed "on the dole" when the dole is completely charity-based. People that wanted to help the less fortunate who breed other less fortunate babies who breed other less fortunate babies...can do so under their own volition. I myself would have no part of it.

I work as a critical care paramedic and see death every day. Rich or poor is irrelevant to me. I see all life as precious, none of us know how long we will be here for.

Being the richest girl in the cemetery doesn't matter to me Gipper.
 
So to recap. You, presumably, with impairments or family with impairments, would support violations of basic human rights, and tell me I am taking it too personally when our people are going to be targeted by the professional class like they were for generations?

I think your previous response suggested you might be taking the discussion personally. I don't consider dysfunctional people "our" people. I have dysfunctional relatives. Some relatives so dysfunctional that they should not (and cannot) shoulder responsibility for raising a child. My loving regard for them as family members cannot possibly change that fact. They should not raise children. Period.

Uh huh. So, my brother, who is a great human being, by virtue of getting SSI and whatnot, should be sterilized.

I don't know. We're just talking about prevention. Without knowing (or needing to know) the specifics about your brother, would sterilization mean he is a "bad" human being? I don't think it would mean that. It would imply he is thought unable to raise a child, but that wouldn't make him a lesser human being. It just means he's not going to be raising children. Do you honestly think he is suited to raise children? If so, maybe he wouldn't be sterilized by any sterilization policy... Does a visually impaired person who is denied a driver's license become a bad person or lesser human being simply because he cannot be trusted to drive a vehicle? Of course not.
 
After saying all that you claim to want just a LITTLE bit of logic and reasoning to enter into the discussion of reproduction.

Meaning - you just want someone to side with you on forcing sterilizations and abortions because you don't like the idea of ever having to care for another person's child (never mind that you'll never be the one to DO it).

For one thing, where did I advocate forced abortions? For another, whether I personally raise some other unfit parents' child or not does not change the fact that a societally-funded organization is charged with arranging the care of that child. And if I can venture a generalization, those children do not tend to have happy childhoods or happy and fulfilled adult lives, on average, at least relative to those who get their needs met as children.

If it comes down to having to determine if someones' fit for pregnancy or parenting I certainly wouldn't want anyone with your selfish views to be calling those shots

Does this mean you think there might be some value to having a process for determining parental fitness, but you just don't want ME to have that job? I'd take that as progress...

So - your tax money is sacrosanct and other people's right to reproduce is not . . . got it and filed it away under 'hypocrisy' for future reference.

What I'm observing is that reproductive rights are sacrosanct, and we just fund cleanup efforts after the damage is already done (to children) by those whose parental failures we could have easily foreseen.
 
I think your previous response suggested you might be taking the discussion personally. I don't consider dysfunctional people "our" people. I have dysfunctional relatives. Some relatives so dysfunctional that they should not (and cannot) shoulder responsibility for raising a child. My loving regard for them as family members cannot possibly change that fact. They should not raise children. Period.



I don't know. We're just talking about prevention. Without knowing (or needing to know) the specifics about your brother, would sterilization mean he is a "bad" human being? I don't think it would mean that. It would imply he is thought unable to raise a child, but that wouldn't make him a lesser human being. It just means he's not going to be raising children. Do you honestly think he is suited to raise children? If so, maybe he wouldn't be sterilized by any sterilization policy... Does a visually impaired person who is denied a driver's license become a bad person or lesser human being simply because he cannot be trusted to drive a vehicle? Of course not.

I am going to take it personally. We are talking about my family, my friends, my colleagues, and my community. I also see your second paragraph as a direct attack on my family. I will have guardianship over him, and will be almost situated as a legal parent to him. I do not take that responsibility lightly in the slightest. He has one life, and by virtue of his disability, I have immense power to influence the rest of his existence. I will not disrespect human life to such an extent so as to allow him to be less of a citizen than he already is, out of some prejudicial belief. All my brother wanted was to work, be a citizen, and live a fulfilling life. He would be granted voting rights, marriage rights, and parental rights regardless of what you think is appropriate.

Frankly, sir, you just attacked my family with the remarks you gave. I am utterly astonished, sickened, and angered. If you ever said that to my face, there would have been immediate consequences, and I don't give a damn if anyone here thinks I would be unjustified in stating as such to you directly.
 
After saying all that you claim to want just a LITTLE bit of logic and reasoning to enter into the discussion of reproduction.

Meaning - you just want someone to side with you on forcing sterilizations and abortions because you don't like the idea of ever having to care for another person's child (never mind that you'll never be the one to DO it).

If it comes down to having to determine if someones' fit for pregnancy or parenting I certainly wouldn't want anyone with your selfish views to be calling those shots - if anything ever possibly encroaches on anything at all - you'll just oppose it because you're (what - rights? peace of mind? freedom?) is sacrosanct?

So - your tax money is sacrosanct and other people's right to reproduce is not . . . got it and filed it away under 'hypocrisy' for future reference.

Well said Auntie. Especially the last sentence. It has been stunning to see that position come to the fore in this thread. Tax money over our reproductive rights. Wow.
 
I am going to take it personally. We are talking about my family, my friends, my colleagues, and my community. I also see your second paragraph as a direct attack on my family. I will have guardianship over him, and will be almost situated as a legal parent to him. I do not take that responsibility lightly in the slightest. He has one life, and by virtue of his disability, I have immense power to influence the rest of his existence. I will not disrespect human life to such an extent so as to allow him to be less of a citizen than he already is, out of some prejudicial belief. All my brother wanted was to work, be a citizen, and live a fulfilling life. He would be granted voting rights, marriage rights, and parental rights regardless of what you think is appropriate.

Frankly, sir, you just attacked my family with the remarks you gave. I am utterly astonished, sickened, and angered. If you ever said that to my face, there would have been immediate consequences, and I don't give a damn if anyone here thinks I would be unjustified in stating as such to you directly.

This doesn't offend me, I just think you're becoming overly worked up over this.
 
Well said Auntie. Especially the last sentence. It has been stunning to see that position come to the fore in this thread. Tax money over our reproductive rights. Wow.

Children's rights over reproductive rights.
 
This doesn't offend me, I just think you're becoming overly worked up over this.

No, I am not. You are talking about violating basic human rights by forcibly preventing him from having children. I will take it very personally.
 
Which rights?

Which rights of children? Their rights to not be neglected or abused.

I realize there is a bit of a "pre-crime" element to this, but I think we should consider the less destructive route here, and all along I have admitted the controversial aspects of this approach. Nonetheless, there are people in our society whose unfitness for parenthood is permanent and incontrovertible. Are you denying this?
 
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.

I don't see why. I fill the role of guardian. I get her medical care and survival needs and emotional needs tended to. I also represent her best interests in a human-dominated environment in which she can't communicate in the language of those who are around her. What is grandiose about being in service to another creature?

Being her guardian doesn't make me above her. Rather the reverse, actually. I accepted a series of responsibilities by taking her into my home, and all I asked for in return is her companionship.
 
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?

What are you talking about?

I never advocated thought crimes. But someone who just sees their child as a possession is likely to treat them like one, and that treatment is often criminal.
 
why not have a license to exist, that kind of Virgo all the other ones wouldn't it?

the license to exist would be a privilege that could be revoked at any moment once deemed no longer eligible.
 
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?

No. Because the results are always terrible. Every society that has ever tried this has wound up with MORE child abuse than what it started with, MORE poverty, MORE abused and damaged women.

I just can't support human rights violation as a policy.
 
No. Because the results are always terrible. Every society that has ever tried this has wound up with MORE child abuse than what it started with, MORE poverty, MORE abused and damaged women.

I won't seek to defend whatever societies you're referring to, but can you explain why reproductive control would invariably lead to more child abuse, domestic violence and poverty? I'm not sure I understand the connection you're suggesting.
 
why not have a license to exist, that kind of Virgo all the other ones wouldn't it?

the license to exist would be a privilege that could be revoked at any moment once deemed no longer eligible.

To digress a little, we are already taxed because of our existence, in this country at least, by virtue of our unconditional requirement to purchase health insurance.
 
I won't seek to defend whatever societies you're referring to, but can you explain why reproductive control would invariably lead to more child abuse, domestic violence and poverty? I'm not sure I understand the connection you're suggesting.

Because people resist having their bodies controlled, and while human reproductive decisions aren't always perfect, they are always better than government-made reproductive decisions, in the big picture.

Reproduction control always worsens society in every single instance it has ever been tried. People will just not allow themselves to be controlled like that, and what is in the interest of the government is often not in the interest of the people.
 
To digress a little, we are already taxed because of our existence, in this country at least, by virtue of our unconditional requirement to purchase health insurance.

yet it's not a license, it's only a tax, which most licenses are simply taxes. but this would be more like a license to drive, it could be revoked.
 
First there is a couple of people who decide (or do not) to have their chromosomes united. Broader than this is governmental control over who should have their chromosomes united and who should not, thereby filtering a certain breed of people. Broader than this image is vacuum, space, and undetermined chaos, that can be best dealt with variety of people living on earth.

This variety cannot be assured from governmental control filter. If we only are to have intellectual analysts and idealists people we cannot operate and survive for there are things that such people may hesitate to do, and thus we may fall behind in responding to that chaos (i.e., unpredictable things that may happen and the majority would hesitate to respond due to not having the necessary material).

Thus I think the snake starts eating it's tail and we get back to score 1. People decide randomly whether to have their chromosomes united or not. This produces variety and greater odds of having the right person on the right situation to respond to chaos in the future.
 
So to recap. You, presumably, with impairments or family with impairments, would support violations of basic human rights, and tell me I am taking it too personally when our people are going to be targeted by the professional class like they were for generations?

Not that I agree with sterilization, but my cousin had schizophrenia and if I remember right, multiple personality disorder.
She had three children, none of which she kept, where should we draw the line between reproductive rights and what's best for potential children?

We're all in favor of full reproductive rights, but not the responsibilities that go with it.
That's incredibly selfish and inhumane.
 
Back
Top Bottom