• 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
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.

I definitely know about this as well.
Repayments, hopefully create an incentive for the mother to name the father.
 
When it is even contemplated that the state might need to force parents to assume parental responsibility or surrender the right, we're in deep trouble.
 
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.
Okay, while I don't necessarily support such policies, I can see the rational basis for them depending on how their implemented.

To me, needing state aid to support a child, is child abuse.
If a parent is able to provide for their child's needs whether through personal or state money, then I don't think that's child abuse. In fact, I think defining child abuse as you have is dilutes the harm of child abuse. In other words, that's hyperbolic.
 
When it is even contemplated that the state might need to force parents to assume parental responsibility or surrender the right, we're in deep trouble.

They already do. :confused:
 
Okay, while I don't necessarily support such policies, I can see the rational basis for them depending on how their implemented.


If a parent is able to provide for their child's needs whether through personal or state money, then I don't think that's child abuse. In fact, I think defining child abuse as you have is dilutes the harm of child abuse. In other words, that's hyperbolic.

I disagree. I think that if you continually and willingly bring children into a world where they are most assured of a life of poverty unless they get some kind of governmental assistance is a type of abuse and also shows that this particular person is irresponsible. That could be a measure of what kind of parent they might be.
 
Okay, while I don't necessarily support such policies, I can see the rational basis for them depending on how their implemented.

I'd make it an interest free loan, with repayments based on the parents income at that time, which can be adjust based on job loss.
No more than 5% of net income.

If a parent is able to provide for their child's needs whether through personal or state money, then I don't think that's child abuse. In fact, I think defining child abuse as you have is dilutes the harm of child abuse. In other words, that's hyperbolic.

If the parent is using state money, they really aren't providing for their kid.
They're having the state provide for their kid.

I'm pretty serious about raising children in the best manner possible.
Doing this poorly has long term social costs, to everyone.
I think we've focused too much on reproductive rights and not enough of duties, after you've reproduced.
 
Last edited:
When it is even contemplated that the state might need to force parents to assume parental responsibility or surrender the right, we're in deep trouble.

In a way, many parents have already done this, even middle and upper income people.
By using the public school system.
 
I disagree. I think that if you continually and willingly bring children into a world where they are most assured of a life of poverty unless they get some kind of governmental assistance is a type of abuse and also shows that this particular person is irresponsible. That could be a measure of what kind of parent they might be.
By that logic, poor people who require gov. assistance should never have children and all poor people who require gov. assistance and who have children are irresponsible. That doesn't make any sense. Not only does such an argument cement society as a place where only middle and upper class people reproduce; it prevents significant class mobility. Some of the greatest contributors to society were born into poor families who required gov. assistance and I would say the vast majority of people are happy that they were born and wouldn't consider their childhoods "abusive" just because of a lack of money.
 
I disagree. I think that if you continually and willingly bring children into a world where they are most assured of a life of poverty unless they get some kind of governmental assistance is a type of abuse and also shows that this particular person is irresponsible. That could be a measure of what kind of parent they might be.

I agree. I had a patient, a schizophrenic, who brought her boyfriend to her appointment, sat down, folded her hands, and announced, 'we have decided to have a baby.' I just looked at her and told her, 'go ahead and have it, DCS will be there to catch it and you will never take it home. You can't live yourself without a case manager, and you sure can't raise a child.' She already had 5 children in state custody. I got to checking around and found that after the last one the doctor had sterilized her. She had a guardian at that juncture who consented and the patient didn't even know it. Why doctors and NPs think they have to let babies go home with severely impaired patients is beyond me. They just don't. They just have to have the balls to do something.
 
They already do. :confused:
Right...So we're in deep trouble, and have been for decades developing a support system that mitigates the symptoms while ignoring the cause. I wish I hadn't gone here with this, but I don't know how to avoid it. I'm certain this has been addressed profusely earlier here. I haven't read all the comments, so I'll probably just shut up and go back and read.
 
When it is even contemplated that the state might need to force parents to assume parental responsibility or surrender the right, we're in deep trouble.



You think they don't? There are countless cases of the government taking children away from parents who neglect and/or abuse them. They only get the kids back by straightening themselves out.
 
In a way, many parents have already done this, even middle and upper income people.
By using the public school system.
Yeah. When the state started providing lunch andbreakfast at school, I quit teaching. That was a long time ago. I knew back then that the state was enabling parents to shuck their responsibilities, and believe me, it showed with the children.
 
I'd make it an interest free loan, with repayments based on the parents income at that time, which can be adjust based on job loss.
No more than 5% of net income.
That sounds better a lot of ideas I've heard and it's something to consider. What would happen, though, for parents who can't ever work because of genuine disability?

If the parent is using state money, they really aren't providing for their kid.
Their having the state provide for their kid.
That depends on the parent. Some parents work and get state money, using both sets of funds to provide for the kid. In any case, my point was that if the child's needs are being met, there isn't any child abuse. If a rich uncle provides money to non-working parents, is that child abuse as well since it's the uncle, not the parents, who are providing for the kid.

I'm pretty serious about raising children in the best manner possible.
Doing this poorly has long term social costs, to everyone.
I think we've focused too much on reproductive rights and not enough of duties, after you've reproduced.
I think people just have different ways of solving the problem of children being raised in undesirable environments. You advocate focusing on getting parents to live up to perceived "duties" while others (including me) focus more on how how the government offset the problems kids bring from home through school programs and the like. I do, however, think that there isn't enough focus on mental health, addiction and other programs for parents in at risk neighborhoods.
 
You think they don't? There are countless cases of the government taking children away from parents who neglect and/or abuse them. They only get the kids back by straightening themselves out.
I didn't say they don't. That the government does such things is after the causal fact, and while that will always be the case to some extent, we've never before seen it in such numbers outside of war zones or natural disasters. What we have now is the product of what is considered a normally functioning society.
 
Yeah. When the state started providing lunch andbreakfast at school, I quit teaching. That was a long time ago. I knew back then that the state was enabling parents to shuck their responsibilities, and believe me, it showed with the children.

Yep, it's an unfortunate turn of events that being a parent, like just providing the basics, is no longer a requirement.
 
I didn't say they don't. That the government does such things is after the causal fact, and while that will always be the case to some extent, we've never before seen it in such numbers outside of war zones or natural disasters. What we have now is the product of what is considered a normally functioning society.

My point in the earlier post was that it doesn't have to be after the fact. Medical people are under a duty to report abuse and neglect. They don't have to wait until after the fact. The OBGYN can involve DCS in the pregnancy if he just will. A crack addicted pregnant woman is ALREADY abusing the child/fetus. You don't have to send the baby home with her. You just don't. I've gotten children's services involved in more than one pregnancy.
 
That sounds better a lot of ideas I've heard and it's something to consider. What would happen, though, for parents who can't ever work because of genuine disability?

Disabilities tend to be faults of nature or accidents.
I can't, in good conscience, hold someone accountable for things they didn't likely cause.

That depends on the parent. Some parents work and get state money, using both sets of funds to provide for the kid. In any case, my point was that if the child's needs are being met, there isn't any child abuse. If a rich uncle provides money to non-working parents, is that child abuse as well since it's the uncle, not the parents, who are providing for the kid.

Actually that too can be potentially viewed as such, depends on the circumstances.
Although when I say "child abuse" I don't necessarily mean they should be prosecuted, although I think it should be shamed.

2 of my inlaws were raised by a mother, that saw men as sources of money and material possession.
She would essentially scam them in order to survive and get stuff.

One of them eventually grew up and developed relationships like that with men and was murdered.
I don't blame the mother for the murder, but I hold her responsible for raising such a morally bankrupt child.

I think people just have different ways of solving the problem of children being raised in undesirable environments. You advocate focusing on getting parents to live up to perceived "duties" while others (including me) focus more on how how the government offset the problems kids bring from home through school programs and the like. I do, however, think that there isn't enough focus on mental health, addiction and other programs for parents in at risk neighborhoods.

I would be fine with a two prong approach.
It's just not fair to kids to be brought up by people who don't put their best interests first.
 
My point in the earlier post was that it doesn't have to be after the fact. Medical people are under a duty to report abuse and neglect. They don't have to wait until after the fact. The OBGYN can involve DCS in the pregnancy if he just will. A crack addicted pregnant woman is ALREADY abusing the child/fetus. You don't have to send the baby home with her. You just don't. I've gotten children's services involved in more than one pregnancy.
That's your job, and I have no doubt you do the responsible thing. I'm not specifically addressing the psychologically distressed or the addicted or the intelligence challenged. I have no doubt we have plenty of that to deal with. I'm talking about the rest who don't have such problems, and it's not the exclusive domain of the poor. As a society, we do not engender the notion that parental responsibility is primary. That is the causal fact that precedes all the rest.
 
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.

Also, people are allowed now to live on, and on, and on - without any regard for their ability to provide for even themsleves. All those "superannuated" folks everywhere, what do they contribute, most of them? Many people are not prepared for being parents; but even fewer are actually prepared - financially, educationally or mentally - for being very old.

Perhaps, there needs to be a license to live. Starting at the age of 50, it would be renewed once in 5 years by your friendly local Committee for Responsibility and Productivity (CRAP). It will evaluate your physical and mental fitness for going on, based on absolutely objective, scientific methods, and if the license cannot be extended, it will provide for humane and caring expiration-time assistance.
The CRAP will self-finance by selling exit visas out of the country to citizens who do not pass the test but still insist on continuation of their selfish existence.
There is a perfect bureaucratic solution for everything, if you try hard enough.
 
That's your job, and I have no doubt you do the responsible thing. I'm not specifically addressing the psychologically distressed or the addicted or the intelligence challenged. I have no doubt we have plenty of that to deal with. I'm talking about the rest who don't have such problems, and it's not the exclusive domain of the poor. As a society, we do not engender the notion that parental responsibility is primary. That is the causal fact that precedes all the rest.

Can you give an example of such a person?
 
By that logic, poor people who require gov. assistance should never have children and all poor people who require gov. assistance and who have children are irresponsible. That doesn't make any sense. Not only does such an argument cement society as a place where only middle and upper class people reproduce; it prevents significant class mobility. Some of the greatest contributors to society were born into poor families who required gov. assistance and I would say the vast majority of people are happy that they were born and wouldn't consider their childhoods "abusive" just because of a lack of money.

There are poor people who do not collect government services and who do take care of their children.

You still have yet to come up with a logical explanation of why people should continue to support other people's children instead of preventing them from having ADDITIONAL children when they already have at least one.

Again, if you don't have the means to support children and keep on having them, that IS a form of abuse. AND it is extremely selfish as well.
 
I don't see this situation as being the same thing at all. This isn't dictating how to spend money or military conflicts or anything like that. This is about people who are unable or unwilling to support their own families who keep adding to their family and relying on others to support them for all of their needs. Logistically, this would be a benefit not only to the taxpayer but also to the welfare recipient and to the "potential" child that would be born into a cycle of poverty.

Your opposition is based upon moral grounds and nothing more.

Actually "the average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average."

From this article titled: Five Media Myths About Welfare
1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.

Five Media Myths About Welfare
 
Can you give an example of such a person?
Thousands upon thousands. Go to a public school, almost any public school, when the children arrive in the morning and take a look. Ask a veteran teacher. It's all around you.
 
Actually "the average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average."

From this article titled: Five Media Myths About Welfare


Five Media Myths About Welfare

I actually agree with a lot of the points made in the article. However, I'm referring to those who do have more than one child and are collecting services.

Did you read Harry's article about the man who has fathered 9 children and refuses (or cannot) pay support for any of them? That is but ONE example of the kind of irresponsibility I'm referring to.
 
all I asked for in return is her companionship.

An animal will like whomever feeds it, regardless of treatment. You are "asking" for something that is automatic, as if it is the pet's decision to make - that's fantasy. You're creating a two-way street where none exists, anthropomorphizing.

You might be the Guardian of the animal, but - more importantly - you are its owner and therefore are responsible for it by law. Your imaginary position as "companion" is counter-productive to personal social development and absolutely secondary to the legal designation of owner.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom