• 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!

Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

Should the right to bear children be regulated?

  • Yes to help keep the poulation down so hunting lands don't get overcrowded!

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Yes for other reasons

    Votes: 5 12.5%
  • No this is dumb

    Votes: 26 65.0%
  • Hmmm maybe

    Votes: 7 17.5%

  • Total voters
    40
  • This poll will close: .

creativedreams

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
239
Location
Timbuktu
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should there be regulations on the right to bear children?

Perhaps being able to have kids should be looked upon like being a privilage like the right to drive a car?

Should parent wannabe's be mandated to take a class and pass a test.

Should there be regulations on being able to qualify to bear children such as marriage, financial stability, minimum age limits etc.

Should it be imposed that a type birth control is mandatory until certain qualifications are met?
 
Last edited:
Should there be regulations on the right to bear children?

Perhaps being able to have kids should be looked upon like being a privilage like the right to drive a car?

Should parent wannabe's be mandated to take a class and pass a test.

Should there be regulations on being able to qualify to bear children such as marriage, financial stability, minimum age limits etc.

Should it be imposed that a type birth control is mandatory until certain qualifications are met?

people who can't spell child shouldn't be allowed to have one.

sorry man.
 
You really can't regulate a biological process. It would be like regulating peeing. It can't and shouldn't be done.

(No, I am not comparing babies to pee....)
 
You really can't regulate a biological process. It would be like regulating peeing. It can't and shouldn't be done.

(No, I am not comparing babies to pee....)

We don't let people put marijuana in their bodies. Why not have the same regulations for fetuses? They are, after all, a lot easier to detect and impossible to hide without destroying...

Seriously, I'd love some kind of regulation on that, maybe to qualify for government assistance, and if your child is neglected due to your lack of license, they can be taken away quickly. There are too many uncaring parents out there.
 
We don't let people put marijuana in their bodies. Why not have the same regulations for fetuses? They are, after all, a lot easier to detect and impossible to hide without destroying...

Ingesting drugs is not a biological process, as it requires an outside source.
Also, are you seriously advocating mandatory abortion?

Seriously, I'd love some kind of regulation on that, maybe to qualify for government assistance, and if your child is neglected due to your lack of license, they can be taken away quickly. There are too many uncaring parents out there.

Why should the government decide who has children and who doesn't? When has it ever shown the kind of judgment necessary to make that decision?

We already have laws which don't allow abusive parents custody of their children. Anything short of abuse gets iffy and is simply too hard to judge. And making judgments before the child is born is nearly impossible.
 
Last edited:
Ingesting drugs is not a biological process, as it requires an outside source.
Also, are you seriously advocating mandatory abortion?



Why should the government decide who has children and who doesn't? When has it ever shown the kind of judgment necessary to make that decision?

We already have laws which don't allow abusive parents custody of their children. Anything short of abuse gets iffy and is simply too hard to judge. And making judgments before the child is born is nearly impossible.

I'm not sure if I would support mandatory abortion yet but I surely would support mandatory prevention to help relieve the welfare stress on most responsible people
 
Should there be regulations on the right to bear children?

Perhaps being able to have kids should be looked upon like being a privilage like the right to drive a car?

Should parent wannabe's be mandated to take a class and pass a test.

Should there be regulations on being able to qualify to bear children such as marriage, financial stability, minimum age limits etc.

Should it be imposed that a type birth control is mandatory until certain qualifications are met?

In bold...absolutely. In particular, parents-to-be need to take an intensive 2 week long workshop that teaches them that having children does not give them the right to act like sociopaths towards the rest of society, i.e. bring crying babies to restaurants, movies, etc. (and then absolutely explode however politely you suggest they try to quiet the baby somehow).

I joke about not liking kids, but in truth I don't think they're so bad. It's the parents who I think are absolute psychopaths.
 
In bold...absolutely. In particular, parents-to-be need to take an intensive 2 week long workshop that teaches them that having children does not give them the right to act like sociopaths towards the rest of society, i.e. bring crying babies to restaurants, movies, etc. (and then absolutely explode however politely you suggest they try to quiet the baby somehow).

I joke about not liking kids, but in truth I don't think they're so bad. It's the parents who I think are absolute psychopaths.

I would like it to be taken a step farther and stop this privilage for some that may be deemed not qualified to parent.
 
How would you like to enforce this mess? Mandatory sterilization, mandatory abortion, or would you simply prefer to seize the newborns of unqualified parents?

Think about the criteria you want to establish for whether or not someone is a fit parent, the effect you're going for. Now think about what happens when someone realizes that legislation like this is a powerful tool to use against one's political enemies, or someone like me gets his meathooks into it and uses it for eugenic purposes.

To put it bluntly, what happens when someone uses these laws against you?
 
You really can't regulate a biological process.
China seems to do it just fine.


Ingesting drugs is not a biological process, as it requires an outside source.
So does getting pregnant.



Also, are you seriously advocating mandatory abortion?
If it was established that a person/couple couldn't provide for all the needs of the child without relying on the state... yes.

If it was decided that the country, or even the world was overpopulated for the amount of resources available... heck yes. (sans some major natural catastrophe(s), this will most likely happen.)
 
Should there be regulations on the right to bear children?

No.

Perhaps being able to have kids should be looked upon like being a privilage like the right to drive a car?

Should parent wannabe's be mandated to take a class and pass a test.

And what government agency are you going to trust to decide who is or isn't fit to have kids? What are they going to teach in those classes exactly? There's enough controversy over the alleged "liberal" invasion of the public education system, I can't even imagine the outcry by conservatives if the subject matter of those classes and the requirements needed to pass the final test are viewed as too liberal.

Should there be regulations on being able to qualify to bear children such as marriage, financial stability, minimum age limits etc.

Aboslutely not. There is no guarantee that being married and financially stable makes you a good parent. Sure, it helps with the material side of things, but raising a child is about a lot more than what you can provide for them. What happens if people get divorced? Or fall on hard times? Does the state take the kids away from them?

As for minimum age requirements, what happens when someone outside the approved age bracket gets pregnant? Mandatory abortion? Forcing them to give up the kid for adoption?

Should it be imposed that a type birth control is mandatory until certain qualifications are met?

And what happens when that birth control fails?

This is a really bad idea all around. Not only does it infringe on people's basic reproductive freedom and takes away all personal responsibility on the matter, it also demands an intricate set of regulations that would eventually become impossible to manage. Short of systematically tying everyones tubes at birth, which would need a constitutional ammendment, I don't see how human reprodution could ever be efficently regulated.
 
Let’s give our government complete control. I’m sure we can learn a few things from China. What type of clothes should I wear? Who should I date? What type of food shall I eat? What type of items should I buy with my own money? Who should I be friends with? I’m thinking a government website or hotline can help.
I guess the state owns our bodies, eh?
Let’s forget the consent of the governed or the government by the people and for the people. Let’s be slaves.
 
Oh, sure, by forcing people to kill their own offspring in the womb. I'm sure that idea's gonna be real popular in some conservative circles in the US.
I seriously doubt it would.
Can you not see a time (such as previously mentioned), when such measures may be implemented, just like they did in China?
I can see it happening.



Let’s forget the consent of the governed or the government by the people and for the people. Let’s be slaves.
So, if a time comes when the country or the world does not have enough resources for the population to survive as a whole, you would rather let the population suffer instead of staving it off, by forced abortions?
 
Last edited:
I seriously doubt it would.
Can you not see a time (such as previously mentioned), when such measures may be implemented, just like they did in China?
I can see it happening.

I can certainly see them try. As for any Western population silently accepting this without a fight, no, sorry, I can't see it.
 
So, if a time comes when the country or the world does not have enough resources for the population to survive as a whole, you would rather let the population suffer instead of staving it off, by forced abortions?

yes. I would by far rather let everyone suffer than select people to be picked off. survival of the fittest would not necessarily entail the irretrievable compromise of personal liberties. can't you at least recognize that the legal/civil ramifications of forced abortions don't compare with those of just letting the surplus population die off? or are you thinking that aborted babies are easier to dispose of than decaying corpses in the street? this is somewhat morbid.
 
As for any Western population silently accepting this without a fight, no, sorry, I can't see it.
If that time ever comes, because of changing attitudes, only a portion of the population would fight it.
Hopefully, most people (which I seriously doubt), would be taking more steps to not bring a child into such a world.



yes. I would by far rather let everyone suffer than select people to be picked off.
Interesting.


can't you at least recognize that the legal/civil ramifications of forced abortions don't compare with those of just letting the surplus population die off?
If that time ever comes, to me, the moral obligation to not bring more children into the world trumps those ramifications. What I recognize is that those ramifications would be non-existent at that time because of the requirement. Changing times.


or are you thinking that aborted babies are easier to dispose of than decaying corpses in the street? this is somewhat morbid.
???
(I suppose then, that they could just let a person give birth, take it away, and just treat it like a 'surplus' person and let it rot away or turn it into food or fertilizer. :doh)
Resources goes much further than just food, but extends to every facet of life.
Which route would conserve more resources? This is what the laws of the time would be based on.


All I am saying is, if a time ever comes when the resources can not support the population, it will be inevitable that such steps as forced abortion, euthanasia, as well as forms of eugenics, will come into play. There is really no way around it. As resources further deplete the requirements of such will become more strict.
If those times ever come, there will be a shift in attitude towards life in general and personal choice in this matter will be trumped by law.
 
Last edited:
If that time ever comes, to me, the moral obligation to not bring more children into the world trumps those ramifications. What I recognize is that those ramifications would be non-existent at that time because of the requirement. Changing times.

???
(I suppose then, that they could just let a person give birth, take it away, and just treat it like a 'surplus' person and let it rot away or turn it into food or fertilizer. :doh)
Resources goes much further than just food, but extends to every facet of life.
Which route would conserve more resources? This is what the laws of the time would be based on.


All I am saying is, if a time ever comes when the resources can not support the population, it will be inevitable that such steps as forced abortion, euthanasia, as well as forms of eugenics, will come into play. There is really no way around it. As resources further deplete the requirements of such will become more strict.
If those times ever come, there will be a shift in attitude towards life in general and personal choice in this matter will be trumped by law.

thinking that it is inevitable and thinking that it should happen are not the same. it sounds to me as though you would place the obligation to not reproduce over the obligation not to kill other people, in such an overpopulated world. abortion aside, euthanasia and eugenics certainly suggest a disregard for human life that I find disturbing, if that is indeed your position. the laws of the time, as you said, would be based on conserving resources, but I would hope that I would not be the only person to reject systematic murder of the weak under any circumstances.
 
Its pretty much a horrible idea in every aspect.

Its completely contrary to why this country was founded. We aren't supposed to seek government consent for things like this.
 
... abortion aside, euthanasia and eugenics certainly suggest a disregard for human life that I find disturbing, if that is indeed your position.
...
the laws of the time, as you said, would be based on conserving resources, but I would hope that I would not be the only person to reject systematic murder of the weak under any circumstances.
My premise, over population and lack of resources, either being the cause of the other.
I am trying to place myself in that time devoid of my present feelings and emotions. If living in such a world, the attitudes of the people will have become somewhat different as a whole than they are now.
(I could even see the Catholic Church reversing it's position on contraceptives.)
How it would start and where it would end up.

This is what I am thinking of. ???

Steps would be taken by our law makers and those steps would increasingly become more strict if the population continued to outpace the resources.

If voluntary euthanasia isn't in place, if and before said times come about, it will be one of the first things passed. As well as limiting the amount of children that can be had. (China)
Those who can not afford to provide for a child's needs will be next to have laws passed on them. *

Forms of eugenics will also play. With technology being what it is, those who can afford it (if not already happening by that time), will probably want to give their offspring the best chance possible to survive in such a world and this will be done through genetic manipulation. (A form of eugenics.) I can't see that as wrong in any way.

* ~ **Not allowing those who couldn't afford to provide for a child's needs to have children, is, in and of itself, another form of eugenics. And based on how things would be at the time, I could not see it as a bad thing. **

If a person/couple/family could not provide for the extra cost of supporting a disabled child they most likely wouldn't be allowed to have one, so testing would be done early, with prevention as the outcome. More eugenics.


* ~ **
Honestly.
icon5.gif
I don't know if this wouldn't be a good thing to implement now.
As far as I am concerned, people shouldn't be bringing children into this world that they themselves cannot provide for.
 
First, a couple of pertinent facts regarding child birth and society:

  1. The fertility rate in the US is estimated at 2.05 births per woman in 2009.
  2. With some variance, the replacement fertility rate is around 2.1 births per woman.

Even applying the utilitarian ethos implied in the OP, the question seeks to address a problem that, in the United States, does not exist. Absent immigration, US population would be largely stable or perhaps even trending downward; at best the US population is maintaining its numbers. Even if resource management were at issue (something for which the case has not been made), curtailing immigration would be the immediate palliative, for regulating birth rates would require several generations for the impact on the larger population to appear, due to the phenomenon of population momentum. Regulating child bearing is the wrong solution to a nonexistent problem; lacking justification, its imposition would be lacking in justice.

Within the question's own ethos, the answer is already and emphatically "no".

Moreover, the United States is not a nation driven by utilitarian ethics. Our government exists to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Our rights are the rights of individuals. "Liberty", within the framework of the Constitution, is not championed as a monolithic society doing what is best for itself, but is rather an endorsement and protection of each individual man's capacity to determine what is best for himself, with the larger society being so ordered as to give each man maximum latitude in that determination. This principle is explicitly stated in the Preamble of the Constitution, and its influence shows in every Amendment in the Bill of Rights, appearing again in explicit form in the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As a point of philosophy, one can debate ad infinitum the wisdom of a particular woman or couple having a child. However, wise or unwise, that choice is for the individual woman or couple to make; government is explicitly denied a capacity to govern over that choice. Liberty in this country includes the capacity to make mistakes, to do that which is unwise; we are a free people only because we are free to err, and free to suffer the consequences of our error.

Thus one may safely say that, not only should the question be answered with a passionate "No!", the question itself is repugnant--and should be repugnant--to a free people whose defining civic virtue is that of liberty of the individual. Child bearing is a blessing, a gift from God to each woman, and no one on earth should presume to interfere.
 
Last edited:
In extreme circumstances, I think people ought to be controlled. Those who cannot afford to pay for the children they produce, who produce excessively because they are psychologically damaged (think Nadya Suleman), those who have, through their own actions, ruined their ability to have healthy children (think certain types of drug users), etc. It would be difficult to do, but the question wasn't about ease or ability, it was about taking a position.
 
In extreme circumstances, I think people ought to be controlled. Those who cannot afford to pay for the children they produce, who produce excessively because they are psychologically damaged (think Nadya Suleman), those who have, through their own actions, ruined their ability to have healthy children (think certain types of drug users), etc. It would be difficult to do, but the question wasn't about ease or ability, it was about taking a position.
Who determines what is extreme? What man is sufficiently endowed with wisdom and insight to co-opt the liberty of his fellow man?
 
Abso-f'n-lutely not! No way, no how. WTF is this, commie China!? Regulate reproduction....that's just about cause for revolt. You can't dictate who can and can't have kids and how many they can have. Ridiculous. No way, no how!
 
Back
Top Bottom