Should people have to get a license to reproduce?

[Incognito]

Are you kidding me? My grandpa grew up in an orphanage, and he ended up getting a masters in history, teaching college/high school courses, and became an ordained pastor. You don't know a damn thing you're talking about, lol! Some of his best stories are from his memories at the old orphanage. He's very nostalgic about those days.

You will never solve the problem you see as 'unfit parenting'. Compulsory sterilization would only complicating everything and make the situation worse, and it's not feasible at all.

I can't argue with your grandpa's experience. It sounds like he was fortunate, good for him (and I am not being sarcastic). Most government run facilities are typically not that great. They are usually bare minimum standards all the way around. Again, if his experience was that good that he is nostalgic about it I am glad that his experience was a good one and I hope that whatever facility he was at is still run the same way.

This is not a theory at all. Please stop shitting on academic vocabulary. Please.

One way that Merriam-Webster defines 'theory' is: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances <<<If you're going to insult someone at least be right. Maybe you should brush up on your vocabulary?

[Incognito]

A system of child permits would be unworkable, because the various welfare agencies that now exist, or new agencies like them, would be in charge of the licensing. Can you imagine those half-witted incompetents being given that kind of power and responsibility? Mind...boggling...

Now this I totally agree with. I find that most government workers are working there because they have to, not because they want to. Most, not all. I too can only imagine those same people running a reproductive licensing program. That would be utterly horrible. As far as the human hunting.... as funny as it was to read I hope you weren't serious. Preventing people from being born into unfavorable circumstances is one thing, but killing people who aren't murderers is a whole different story. One that I wouldn't condone.

[Take2]

Woah, that came way out of left field. Why would middle schoolers be trying to get a license anyway? You know what? I don't want to know. Anyway you need to reread post 15 (at the bottom) because you are getting into specifics of a system that doesn't exist. The debate is on the theory and principle surrounding this license. You seem to be very caught up on "rights" like so many who desperately fight to reserve their ability to do anything they can simply to say that they can do those things. Forget about "your rights" for a minute and answer this: Should there be less children born in the US each year? (Taking into consideration that a large number are not born to individuals or couples that want them or have the ability/will to take care of them) Go ahead and answer, but the simple answer is "yes, less children should be born each year". Less children born to those who shouldn't have children means that less is spent on health care, less mouths to feed overall, and less money spent on welfare and other such programs. It also means less children in our school systems who have uncaring/abusive parents (because those factors affect a child's ability and will to learn) and that the children who ARE here are probably being raised by people who want them and not some irresponsible people who were too stupid, lazy, or promiscuous to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Excuse me? You are aware that reproduction is a biological function, right? And that in order to limit it, we would have to enforce some form of temporary sterilization on every person who could conceivably reproduce, right? And that puberty is the onset of that biological ability? I mean, I get that you don't want to discuss the specifics, but that is a given. There is no other way to work this. And it is a huge problem for me.

You can say that rights are beside the point, and that the ends justify the means. You can say it in a condescending way. It doesn't change the fact that the means you propose are not practical logistically, not supportable morally, and not feasible financially. Rights are something that has to be considered. Are there any rights at all that you would not consider handing over freely to your government? I am genunely curious.

[Incognito]

Ok you explained your position better. Actually I acknowledged that the age of when to implement the sterilization would be a problem. There are numerous problems with this hypothetical program. I am not ironing out a real plan that I would present to the government for consideration. We're all just talking here, so the main thing I was discussing was that there should be less children born to people who don't want them, or shouldn't have them. There is no real way to keep that from happening, but I thought that I'd debate a licensing program anyway to see if people at least agreed that it would be great if something could be done to change the current situation. That is the bottom line here. Some people agree, some disagree, some can't seem to express an opinion without being insulting. Its all part of the discussion process.

[warriormaiden]

I actually am a bit disturbed by the responses in this thread.

I'm all for parents who shouldn't have kids, NOT having kids. It's not only gonna be rough for the child, it's also going to be rough for us as a society.
But where the f*ck do we get off creating mandatory sterilizations? At the end of the day, that's their body. It's like creating a law that says 'Thou shalt not get stupid tattoos because it offends us."

[Incognito]

Tattoos don't eat, can't be abused, and don't cost other people money. How was that illustration relevant to this in any way? Again this is something that will never happen, so there is no need to get upset about it.

[Take2]

Here is what I see. You see a problem, and state that it is a problem. You propose a solution that is not workable logistically, financially or morally. You then propose that we discuss the solution, but if anyone raises the financial, logistical or moral issues with your solution, you say that is too much detail and you just want to discuss high level. It isn't possible.

Yes, it is a real problem. Parents who should not have kids have kids. Parents who can't support their kids have kids. And there are too many kids. I agree.

However, it's not a matter of taking an abhorent solution and saying that someone else can figure out the details. The problems with yur solution are fundamental to the solution.

I think there are more reasonable solutions. Those governmental leaders who are so skittish about sexuality that they stand in the way of good education about sex and preventing unwanted pregnancies need to wake up and work toward a real solution. Parents who want their kids are better parents.

What's more, we need to get out of ridiculous made-up wars and get that money back into our economy. Poverty and poor education affect the ability to parent well. The answer is to solve the problem, not punish the victims.

[Incognito]

Ok the license plan will never happen.... ever. I guess we should stop talking about it then. So much for discussion on forums.

[SelflessnHumble]

Excuse me? You are aware that reproduction is a biological function, right? And that in order to limit it, we would have to enforce some form of temporary sterilization on every person who could conceivably reproduce, right? And that puberty is the onset of that biological ability? I mean, I get that you don't want to discuss the specifics, but that is a given. There is no other way to work this. And it is a huge problem for me.

You can say that rights are beside the point, and that the ends justify the means. You can say it in a condescending way. It doesn't change the fact that the means you propose are not practical logistically, not supportable morally, and not feasible financially. Rights are something that has to be considered. Are there any rights at all that you would not consider handing over freely to your government? I am genunely curious.

You are aware that each idea that is posted here has their inherent strengths and weaknesses moreover the fact these ideas may never be fully realized due to their "politically correct" establishment they attack/challenge.

[SelflessnHumble]

Here is what I see. You see a problem, and state that it is a problem. You propose a solution that is not workable logistically, financially or morally. You then propose that we discuss the solution, but if anyone raises the financial, logistical or moral issues with your solution, you say that is too much detail and you just want to discuss high level. It isn't possible.

Yes, it is a real problem. Parents who should not have kids have kids. Parents who can't support their kids have kids. And there are too many kids. I agree.

However, it's not a matter of taking an abhorent solution and saying that someone else can figure out the details. The problems with yur solution are fundamental to the solution.

I think there are more reasonable solutions. Those governmental leaders who are so skittish about sexuality that they stand in the way of good education about sex and preventing unwanted pregnancies need to wake up and work toward a real solution. Parents who want their kids are better parents.

What's more, we need to get out of ridiculous made-up wars and get that money back into our economy. Poverty and poor education affect the ability to parent well. The answer is to solve the problem, not punish the victims.

^^^ While you have a valid opinion...So does Incognito.
The fact you disagree with the OP is a natural construct in a civilized debate/discussion where opinions are thrown out there to discuss.

Honestly I can't agree with all of his ideas: but seriously do you deny that this planet is:

-Heavily populated?
-Heavily populated with MANY of the people (at least in the U.S.) growing up to be nobodies that further perpetuate conventional architypes of socially inept bullshit that does nothing for your growth and
-development as neighbors in a land that isn't anyone's to take, cede to another group of people just because a bible's interpretation says so or some other unrelated dogma that cannot be super imposed upon a group of people because a perceived hierarchy says so?

[misombra]

[url="http://www.funnyforumpics.com"][/url]


yeah dude. this thread sucks.

[Take2]

^^^ While you have a valid opinion...So does Incognito.
The fact you disagree with the OP is a natural construct in a civilized debate/discussion where opinions are thrown out there to discuss.

Honestly I can't agree with all of his ideas: but seriously do you deny that this planet is:

-Heavily populated?
-Heavily populated with MANY of the people (at least in the U.S.) growing up to be nobodies that further perpetuate conventional architypes of socially inept bullshit that does nothing for your growth and
-development as neighbors in a land that isn't anyone's to take, cede to another group of people just because a bible's interpretation says so or some other unrelated dogma that cannot be super imposed upon a group of people because a perceived hierarchy says so?

What the heck does that third bullet even mean? It looks like an argument against creating the nation of Israel in the 1940s, not sure how it relates to the issue of a test to procreate or whether I agree or disagree with it in this context.

I have stated that I agree with Incognito's stated problem. Yes, overpopulation is a problem and generational poverty is a problem. But controlling reproduction isn't the solution. It isn't a viable solution because it is morally repugnant, logistically impossible and financially outragious. Therefore, some other set of solutions is needed. That doesn't discount the problems, though. They are real and serious.

Incognito, your little huff in post 38 is silly. That an unviable solution to a real problem doesn't generate deep and ongoing debate doesn't mean that all other debates are hereby cancelled. I don't know that it WON'T happen, ever. I certainly hope it doesn't, because it isn't good for society for it to happen. But if we pulled out of the war, the US economy woulld improve and their would be fewer children living in poverty. If our government put money into our school systems to really educate all of our nation's youth, there would be fewer ignorant adults. While many Americans seem perfectly fine just pointing a finger at banks and feeling smug, I think the recent fiascos with financial sector ALSO point to the very real need for financial education to become part of our school's curriculum so that we can have educated consumers. That would help society as a whole and decrease generational poverty. Heck, even revising the tax code so that the entire burden of running the government was a bit more equitably distributed between the haves and have nots would improve the situation.

[SelflessnHumble]

Ok the license plan will never happen.... ever. I guess we should stop talking about it then. So much for discussion on forums.

Dude, don't give up so easily.
See, in a perfect world....I'd never want to tell someone they cannot have children...because (at face value) it sounds cold, callous and insensitive to other people (as a culture)

If and only IF we are disposed to SEE with our own eyes how certain people FAIL as parents: we can begin to formulate an idea that tells us
people should be screened to have children.

I personally know major screw ups for parents that had children.
If we are to take what Doppel says as truth...Then even murderers, verbally, mentally, physically abusive people should also have children?

Common sense: as a child: we aren't actually innocent ONCE we've accepted behavior/programming as TRUTH.
Once this happens: they bargain and negotiate that this behavior IS O.K.

If we are to be like Doppel: Then WHO are WE to *judge* what is good and bad behavior as the basis for determining WHO can and can't have children.
I argue different.

Everyone knows someone who's abused as a child. What form (while different) is inconsequential to the outcome: a damaged child who grows up hurting other people.
Some hurt is legal (while immoral or unethical) right? But what about rape, murderer and other unspeakable acts that these people (once children) do?

Common sense tells us the Government IS only in place when two people need an intermediary to settle a dispute they cannot solve themselves.
The people are supposed to rule their Government, not the other way around.

Now the main issue:
Are people (in general) ****ing stupid beyond belief? I don't mean a disagreement of an opinion can be grounds of labeling someone unintelligent: that is absurd right?
What about the people that need instructions on how to put in their feet into shoes, or turn on the gas (on a stove) without a flame thinking they are saving
on their gas bill, then light a cigarette a minute afterward?

Should these people raise children too? I would say yes! But first some requisites are in order wouldn't you say?
-Income, housing, one on one interview with the parents wanting to have children SHOULD be a reality.

What about a former ex convict? Former thief, armed robber, rapist.


I ask you this (all of you)

-If you ran a bank....would you hire someone that steals?
-If you run a day care center...would you hire a former or current pedo rapist?
-If you ran a woman's shelter...would you allow an abusive man volunteer?


If Yes? Why?
If No? Why Not?

[SelflessnHumble]

What the heck does that third bullet even mean? It looks like an argument against creating the nation of Israel in the 1940s, not sure how it relates to the issue of a test to procreate or whether I agree or disagree with it in this context.

It wasn't against any one nation.
It was against ANY noun against any other noun that feels they are owed something because they want it.
Is Ra El is another issue entirely...My issue is the licensing of anything to give permission to do anything is the issue.

Since you brought up our super Israeli allies...what do you think about what they do?

I have stated that I agree with Incognito's stated problem. Yes, overpopulation is a problem and generational poverty is a problem. But controlling reproduction isn't the solution. It isn't a viable solution because it is morally repugnant, logistically impossible and financially outragious. Therefore, some other set of solutions is needed. That doesn't discount the problems, though. They are real and serious.

Controlling reproduction isn't the solution? If this isn't the mechanism to stop overpopulation what is?
The only other option is to kill people until we reach the desired Earthly population.

Morally repugnant? Are you now stating that we need to please EVERYONE and make them happy?
(This ^^^ his logically impossible as well) so is your logically impossible statement better than mine? (just a question)

Some other set of solutions is needed?
People are going to learn to be financially, socially and physically responsible for their actions and choices in life.
This is the solution. Is it logical? No.

What would you do?
It's so easy to disagree with call out someone's idea morally repugnant.
It's harder to actually propose ideas YOU back and put them out there (as the OP) had done. Right?

I think the recent fiascos with financial sector ALSO point to the very real need for financial education to become part of our school's curriculum so that we can have educated consumers. That would help society as a whole and decrease generational poverty. Heck, even revising the tax code so that the entire burden of running the government was a bit more equitably distributed between the haves and have nots would improve the situation.

I just have to ask you: "Do you know which taxes pay for what services out "Government" provides???

(Here's a hint for you) IT is NOT the "federal" Income tax either.

[SelflessnHumble]

I actually am a bit disturbed by the responses in this thread.

I'm all for parents who shouldn't have kids, NOT having kids. It's not only gonna be rough for the child, it's also going to be rough for us as a society.
But where the f*ck do we get off creating mandatory sterilizations? At the end of the day, that's their body. It's like creating a law that says 'Thou shalt not get stupid tattoos because it offends us."

Agreed. I don't think we should be mandating sterilization.
We don't mandate other things that are perceived to be a requisite to be deemed "American" so why start with this?

Here, look...

I have the right to peace.
You have the right to peace as well.
I do NOT have the right to impede your rights, damage your property, nor hurt you. Neither do you.

If I have a child that say doesn't STFU...yells, bangs shit (while you are attempting to but cannot assert your right to be in peace)
The child has breached your peace; period. Since he is a child: I would ask you this? Do you just walk away and leave where you were
to have your peace elsewhere? Or do you exercise your other rights to speak with the parent and tell them you don't appreciate their kid's lack of respect for your rights?

Tattoos aren't offensive.
It's the people that perceive them as such. It's their problem: not yours.