• 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
minnie616 said:
Not irrelevant since you brought SS paying for abortions.
Click to expand...

:lamo LOL! You've got me there, but really I'm talking about sterilizing so that it never even reaches THAT point.

Of course, this is all strictly for debate purposes (it's a boring rainy Sunday ;)). If it actually came down to it, I doubt I would support such a drastic measure, but it's certainly interesting to think about it and debate it.
 
a351 said:
Legal implications, as mentioned before. The only recourse you have is calling up your congressman and encouraging him to alter the income qualifications for welfare, the amount of children that one is compensated for, or abolish it altogether. After that, it's hands off. Poor folks don't have to garner your approval in order to screw.

Missed the point. Lower income families who would like to have another child wouldn't view your dictates as beneficiary nor welcome.
Click to expand...

See, I don't believe in punishing the child for the sins of the parents. That's the thing with me.

Whether or not people would "welcome" the intrusion is besides the point. The question is, IMO, what would be best for society as a whole? Trying to ignore the emotional/moral side of the issue, I cannot come up with a good reason why not and I'm truly interested in what others come up with. Government intrusion is one good one so far.
 
ChrisL said:
:lamo LOL! You've got me there, but really I'm talking about sterilizing so that it never even reaches THAT point.

Of course, this is all strictly for debate purposes (it's a boring rainy Sunday ;)). If it actually came down to it, I doubt I would support such a drastic measure, but it's certainly interesting to think about it and debate it.
Click to expand...

As far as things go, the state can and has ordered people not to have more children.
It's just usually men who fail to pay child support.
 
Gina said:
So let me recap a bit here.

1. Everyone, before getting pregnant has to get a license. The procedure and qualifications for which have not been discussed in much detail, as far as I can see. IMO, this would have to cover everyone. Regardless of socio-economic status or it's discriminatory. Everyone should have to go through the steps to qualify. So before say a Donald Trump or a senator/congressman, hedge fund trader or doctor could procreate, they too would have to qualify and get a license.

2. The people who get pregnant without a license who have kids? What's the penalty? No benefits. So what happens to kids who were not licensed? They starve, go homeless and now we have a greater problem than before.

3. Sterilization has been brought up. In exchange for benefits. There have also been posts advocating for eugenics.

4. A DNA database was suggested.

Kind of amazing, Brave New World stuff, as has been mentioned too.

EDIT for clarity.
Click to expand...
I'm actually reading Brave New World right now. Seeing this thread while in the midst of reading that book is extremely disturbing. I am so incredibly sickened by this thread, but the ironic thing about those arguing in favor of licensing/sterilization is that they would likely be prohibited from reproducing given the complete lack of empathy and destructive tendencies that they've displayed.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wisconsin judge orders man to stop having children | WTKR.com
Click to expand...

Yikes! Nine kids? Why? Lol! I kind of see that as a worthless "sentence" (if that's what you would call it) though. Who's to say he would ever abide by that decision? Who is going to enforce it and what if he doesn't?

We all know that people don't always do what they are told. I imagine in the case of a guy like this, the chances of him actually taking this judge's ruling seriously when it comes to him getting a "little nookie" are probably slim to none. :lol:
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm actually reading Brave New World right now. Seeing this thread while in the midst of reading that book is extremely disturbing. I am so incredibly sickened by this thread, but the ironic thing about those arguing in favor of licensing/sterilization is that they would likely be prohibited from reproducing given the complete lack of empathy and destructive tendencies that they've displayed.
Click to expand...

Quit being so sensitive. Some of us are only debating the issue.
 
ChrisL said:
Yikes! Nine kids? Why? Lol! I kind of see that as a worthless "sentence" (if that's what you would call it) though. Who's to say he would ever abide by that decision? Who is going to enforce it and what if he doesn't?

We all know that people don't always do what they are told. I imagine in the case of a guy like this, the chances of him actually taking this judge's ruling seriously when it comes to him getting a "little nookie" are probably slim to none. :lol:
Click to expand...

He'll likely go to jail if he doesn't listen.
I think this smacks of the gender discrimination that goes on with reproduction rights.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
He'll likely go to jail if he doesn't listen.
I think this smacks of the gender discrimination that goes on with reproduction rights.
Click to expand...

Maybe he should just be sterilized? :2razz:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I won't go that far, I just think that both parties should be financially responsible for children past the 1st, on state aid.
It's only fair.
Click to expand...

I hear that, but I worry about the innocent children too. They are the ones who would suffer the most.
 
ChrisL said:
I hear that, but I worry about the innocent children too. They are the ones who would suffer the most.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
The state provides aid, until all the children reach the age of majority.
Then the parents have to pay back any moneys collected for children, after the 1st.
 
ChrisL said:
Quit being so sensitive. Some of us are only debating the issue.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I'm debating the issue as well and one of arguments is that some of the positions being advocated mirror those in Brave New World and that they are lacking in empathy and are destructive to society and humanity, in general.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...
What are you suggesting then if not sterilization? Your comment is ambiguous to the point where your argument is indiscernible.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not at all.
The state provides aid, until all the children reach the age of majority.
Then the parents have to pay back any moneys collected for children, after the 1st.
Click to expand...

And what's the difference between that and judge's orders for child support? The point is that it doesn't make a difference for the most part. People are going to be people and continue to do what they want to do in the end. We can "order" them to pay and threaten them with jail, but we already do that with child support and it doesn't seem to work so well.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What are you talking about? I'm debating the issue as well and one of arguments is that some of the positions being advocated mirror those in Brave New World and that they are lacking in empathy and are destructive to society and humanity, in general.
Click to expand...

I don't want you accusing me of advocating any kind of scenario like your book suggests. The reason why some people WOULD advocate for this is empathy and sympathy for the unwanted children.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What are you suggesting then if not sterilization? Your comment is ambiguous to the point where your argument is indiscernible.
Click to expand...

I think forced sterilization is bad, but I also think that subsidizing poor choices and planning is bad, as well.
I think there should be a set of consequences for relying on state aid and having more than 1 child, that you require state aid to support.

To me, needing state aid to support a child, is child abuse.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think forced sterilization is bad, but I also think that subsidizing poor choices and planning is bad, as well.
I think there should be a set of consequences for relying on state aid and having more than 1 child, that you require state aid to support.

To me, needing state aid to support a child, is child abuse.
Click to expand...

I can totally relate to that viewpoint. To me, having child after child after child that one cannot afford and pretty much mandating that others care for financially is a form of child abuse as well.
 
ChrisL said:
And what's the difference between that and judge's orders for child support? The point is that it doesn't make a difference for the most part. People are going to be people and continue to do what they want to do in the end. We can "order" them to pay and threaten them with jail, but we already do that with child support and it doesn't seem to work so well.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not happy with the rise of single parenthood, especially if there are multiple children involved.
It generally leads to these children being brought up in poor conditions, regardless of state aid.

Note, I'm not implicating all single parents here, just those who rely on state aid, have multiple children and who are not a victim of consequence (rape, abusive husband, etc).

If you wish to remain single, have more than one child you can't afford, the state should require you to pay that aid back after the children grow up.
Of course, I would say that splitting it between both parents would be an option, the single mother has to name that person though.
 
Of course, everyone is apt to making mistakes and poor decisions, that's why I give the allowance of MORE than one child in my argument.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't want you accusing me of advocating any kind of scenario like your book suggests. The reason why some people WOULD advocate for this is empathy and sympathy for the unwanted children.
Click to expand...
I haven't even read most of your posts, but if you're advocating sterilization or some form of eugenics; if you've referred to parents you perceive as irresponsible with contemptuous phrases like "breeding morons"; or if you've said things like "I don't care if they die in the streets", then those are the arguments I'm talking about. If not, then your arguments are not what I'm talking about.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, I'm not happy with the rise of single parenthood, especially if there are multiple children involved.
It generally leads to these children being brought up in poor conditions, regardless of state aid.

Note, I'm not implicating all single parents here, just those who rely on state aid, have multiple children and who are not a victim of consequence (rape, abusive husband, etc).

If you wish to remain single, have more than one child you can't afford, the state should require you to pay that aid back after the children grow up.
Of course, I would say that splitting it between both parents would be an option, the single mother has to name that person though.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Something important to remember too is that some people who collect services are not actually single. They are gaming the system. I've seen it multiple times where a woman actually does have a man residing with her but lies about it in order to continue to collect services. I believe that another poster brought this point up earlier in the thread. So I don't know how reliable these "single-parenting" issues are, and on top of that are multiple other contributing factors IMO.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's why I say, 1st kid free from repayments, subsequent children you repay for.
I'm not an inhumane bastard.
Click to expand...

LOL! I'm just defending my OWN position. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom