Should people have to get a license to reproduce?

[IncognitoSir]

Atleast some sort of evaluation would be something to think about. I see A LOT of unfit parents from a lot of different places.

[SelflessnHumble]

Well all of the questions that you mention are woefully obvious, which is probably why you used them. Also, while I was not insinuating that people with low income shouldn't be allowed to have children anyone who wants children should be able to provide for them. Nothing major like the latest and greatest clothes, electronics, and other unnecessary thing, but basics like good food, adequate clothing, clean and safe housing. To get a license for anything you have to meet requirements, and this would be the same. No one likes to think that someone will be constructing a qualification list that they have to meet before they can do/get something, but someone has to do it.

To answer you question about personal rights I can't give you some kind of short decisive answer, but I'll try to be short and detailed. Anyway, I think that everyone should have certain basic rights, however, if those rights start to encroach on the majority then they should be limited or taken away. Every issue is different though. If reproduction is viewed as a right, why should it be unfettered when overpopulation and hunger is a major problem (and not even talking about the whole world, there are plenty of places in the US where people are starving or where there are too many people living in a given area).

I do see your point about how to judge an unfit parent before they are actually a parent. That is why basic requirements would have to be met for a license. If people manage to get a license and then prove to be unfit (i.e. abusive, neglectful, not providing) then the child goes up for adoption/foster care and the parents lose their license. If someone goes through the licensing process though they are more likely to actually take care of heir child. Unlike many today who just want an orgasm and a child is an unplanned/unwanted side effect. The sterilization would also allow those people to not have to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

There are other factors which would make this hard to implement like age, but remember I'm not putting together a concrete proposition for this system. I am mainly debating the principle/theory.

I hate to agree with Doppel, but I agree with most of what he says.
However since I also see where you're coming from as well and if you're going to stipulate conditions for people to have children it should be so direct and simple
that no one could argue over them: (for example) in a perfect world...


(1) You want to bring a baby into this world? Fine. You will need to be a couple and provide a loving environment. Want to break up? (break up a family?) It will cost you.
-Don't like it? Make better choices: grow and develop. Don't make excuses in life.

(2) You would need to write a simple paragraph stating why you would like a baby/family/and what would you DO for them: to have a family?
-Describing love, how you view it: mention how you were raised too.

(3) You will need to be subject to a surprise interview at your home: (Example)

If you have 22inch chromed rims on a car that is worth less than these rims? You may not have children.
If you are leasing for 120months a 2010 Cadillac Escalade, have many expensive personal possessions but live in a $500.00/month studio apartment OR rent a room? It's a no.

Babies are free: but they cost money. A well disciplined financial plan is a prerequisite. Don't have one? Fine. Don't have children. Period.


I believe in a free state BUT the problem is: we have issues with people NOT taking responsibility for their actions (namely men who F uck for sport and who don't stay when they find out she's pregnant)

I don't believe in I.Q. tests but I do believe in one on one interviews and assessment of past and present choices that financially affect that person today.
Even though credit cards are pointless to have (based on the fact they are perpetrated on a fraud) a history of unpaid debt=irresponsibility.

The fact is: if you're good enough to have sex: you are good enough to make good on your decision to have sex (and potentially become a father)
which instinctively and naturally speaking is an act primarily used for reproduction: not sport: not physical enjoyment.


People also have a right to free travel BUT most of them can't travel/drive for shit.
We as a society promote failure. We give trophies for last place when there should be none.
Not everyone is a winner in a competition. The sooner little Timmy figures out that he actually lost: the better his character is going to be.
It would be nice if the State could regulate this and not the U.S. Go'vt.

[Take2]

Well all of the questions that you mention are woefully obvious, which is probably why you used them.

No, I used them because they are actual examples of failures in parenting my own parents made. And yet my parents could have passed any test you could devise for pre-requisite to having a child.

Since reproduction is a biological function, how are those of you who like this idea proposing it be limited for every pubescent child until they pass this test? The other challenges I see are administering this (we would need periodic sperm counts for middle schooler boys, for instance) and the harm to the majority. I don't want my son or daughter subjected to current hormone treatments available to prevent pregnancy at the age of 11! There are medical side effects and risks. Also, if the government has the right to regulate my body's function, what rights do I have left?

[Sonrisa]

what????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????? DoesntMatter is back?

[DoesntMatter]

what????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????? DoesntMatter is back?

Yeah whaddup! You wanna screw?

[Sonrisa]

Yeah whaddup! You wanna screw?

where you been Mikey?

[DoesntMatter]

Well I initially left LF for a few reasons although I knew I was gonna return at some point.

It was taking up too much time and I think one of my friends might have seen me posting here (as in I didn't minimize a window soon enough when he looked at my laptop one day). It was also kind of stupid for me to be posting here since I have as much love experience as a 5 year old.

So I thought I'd leave and come back once I had some good news to report. But it was bad news, of course, that brought me back.

[Sonrisa]

Well I initially left LF for a few reasons although I knew I was gonna return at some point.

It was taking up too much time and I think one of my friends might have seen me posting here (as in I didn't minimize a window soon enough when he looked at my laptop one day). It was also kind of stupid for me to be posting here since I have as much love experience as a 5 year old.

So I thought I'd leave and come back once I had some good news to report. But it was bad news, of course, that brought me back.

well, we should be thankful for all bad events that bring us here. or not.

but really, get laid already. and post an updated pick.

[DoesntMatter]

but really, get laid already. and post an updated pick.

Is this here an offer?

[Sonrisa]

Is this here an offer?

if there are no better options by December 2nd, it may be considered as such.

[Incognito]

No, I used them because they are actual examples of failures in parenting my own parents made. And yet my parents could have passed any test you could devise for pre-requisite to having a child.

Since reproduction is a biological function, how are those of you who like this idea proposing it be limited for every pubescent child until they pass this test? The other challenges I see are administering this (we would need periodic sperm counts for middle schooler boys, for instance) and the harm to the majority. I don't want my son or daughter subjected to current hormone treatments available to prevent pregnancy at the age of 11! There are medical side effects and risks. Also, if the government has the right to regulate my body's function, what rights do I have left?

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.

[Lipp]

Because obviously raising kids well is a money issue, you'd never hear of rich kids being neglected or raised by nannies because the parents are too 'busy', and that can't possibly make them unfit parents and due for sterilization.

[/sarcasm]

[chump4u]

This is an offshoot of another thread, but I believe that people should indeed have to get a license to have children. If you fail to get a license you should be sterilized (tubal ligation and vasectomies are reversible). Extreme? Many people who simply look at their "rights" and "personal freedoms", instead of the larger picture, always think so. Consider that there are thousands of unfit parents per city that collect money from various agencies while not contribution to society at all. These same people who are supposed to be using their 'free money' to raise their children do not 9/10 times. Those children eventually become unproductive, violent, worthless adults just like their parents.

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...

But I can think of a system of licensing that might work to cut down useless population and get rid of human debris.

We need to turn it over to the various state Fish & Wildlife agencies.

Let game wardens check families on, let's say, a kid's 15th birthday. If the wardens find that the kid has been raised to be a feral animal, they mark the kid and the parents for a cull, then send them to a state game reserve. The state then issues hunting licenses-- for a hefty fee-- and hunters shoot the culls for trophies.

I think you could charge enough for one license to make up all the welfare payments that go into raising a single trophy animal; the license fees for the parents would be pure gravy. You could peddle licenses at, say, $100,000 per head to Arab oil sheiks a bushel at a time-- get back some of that oil money.

Sheeit! More I think about it, better it sounds...

I'm writing my congressman right now!

[doppelgaenger]

Ok, I'm not talking about purifying the human race, so don't EVEN go there. I also made no mention of criminals, mentally disabled people or otherwise.

there are thousands of unfit parents per city that collect money from various agencies while not contribution to society at all. These same people who are supposed to be using their 'free money' to raise their children do not 9/10 times. Those children eventually become unproductive, violent, worthless adults just like their parents.

Indeed you have.

Why is breeding a basic right?

Jeeze, did your parents ever have that conversation with you about the birds and the bees? You're going to have to figure this out on your own.

overpopulation is a problem everywhere, which affects the entire world.

Prove it.

Do you know anything about the welfare system and how many people are actually on it? Do you know how it is funded?

Indeed I do. This is why I'm NOT suggesting Nazi ideologies as solutions to economic issues. There is this awesome thing, called the World Health Organization, established shortly after WWII. You should read up on that, especially since you don't know why reproduction is a basic right.

You also seem to think that the "real" solution is to allow children to be born to unfit parents, parents who don't want them, or parents who abuse them and build more orphanages?

I never made any such claims. I'm also not the one who is making generalizations. You haven't even bothered to define what you mean by "unfit". You just sound like a pissed off tax payer looking for any excuse to target the welfare system.

I mean, first, you say everybody should be sterilized and forced to take a test, and then you make fallacious generalizations that 1. poor people who rely on welfare are often bad parents who 2. produce worthless children.

Here's the thing about tests, though; just because a person passes a test does not mean they are going to be a good parent, or a good anything. For example, take a look at how many bad drivers there are. Last year we had 37,261 fatalities in the US as a result of poor driving skills and judgment, and 37% of those fatalities were alcohol-related. Nearly all of the drivers involved in these fatalities went through a required licensing program and had some experience driving, but still somehow managed to be part of a fatal accident.

Compulsory sterilization would ultimately solve nothing.

THAT is insane. It would cost A LOT to do that. Land acquisition, engineering, materials acquisition, construction, staff, utilities, food and activities for the children and maintenance/operating costs for the life of the facility.... they all cost money. Where does that money come from? More taxes.

I KNEW IT!!!! Whiny, pissed off tax payer.

Taxes are good, man. I'm not even gonna argue that - it's common sense!

Plus orphanages don't solve the root problem, which licensing/sterilization would. Not to mention that orphanages are horrible places for the most part. Think prison for children, only worse because they have to try to "sell" themselves to prospective adopters. Its just like at a kennel where the young cute puppies get adopted the fastest and the older you get the slimmer your chances get.

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 do agree with others here that it would probably never happen because people are too stuck on defending personal rights just for the sake of doing so, but we are mainly discussing the theory/principle here.

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

[Incognito]

You just love to argue Doppel, I can appreciate that. Anyway, there is a huge difference between genocide and trying to stem the ever growing amount of people who have kids (who shouldn't have them). I now realize that I shouldn't have typed that I wasn't referring to having less criminals, but I was not referring to killing existing ones. Also this is not just a tax issue. Sure I hate taxes, everyone hates taxes, but that isn't what this thread is mainly about.

Again I ask, why is breeding a RIGHT? That has nothing to do with the proverbial "birds and bees".

Prove overpopulation? That is some kind of funny. Look at any concrete jungle in the US where living spaces are stacked 20 stories high and the only greenery for miles is in a plant pot. LOL When trash and concrete is more plentiful than plant life and wild life chances are the area is overpopulated.

Again, this is NOT just about economic issues. If everyone were rich there are still plenty of people who shouldn't have children. Also you think I should read up on the WHO? Isn't that a lot like saying "read up on the United States"? What should I specifically look at?

As far as orphanages you made that claim EXACTLY. Post #8, last paragraph, where you said "The only reasonable solution we have to these apparent problems are orphanage homes and serving justice for the children who are mistreated/neglected/abused...". If orphanages are a solution [your words] more must be built since more children are born each year to parents that don't want them, can't handle the responsibility/cost, or shouldn't have them.

I'll further say that I totally agree with you that no test will EVER weed out all bad/unfit parents. However if there is at least some barrier to child making that must be passed it will filter out at least some of those who shouldn't have children. Having a fence around a restricted area doesn't keep everyone out, but it keeps out a lot more than no barrier at all. This is the same idea.

Also stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that all poor people are on welfare, nor did I say that all people on welfare are worthless loads who produce worthless children. Many are though. Despite what YOU have seen or experienced I have seen the utterly worthless people that lived near me with seven kids who were clothed in beat up dirty clothes while the parent (usually a mother unfortunately) NEVER went to work, always got her hair/nails done, and was always in the grocery store with her assistance card. Go ahead and defend people like that if you want, but its foolish. People like that don't deserve children and I don't deserve having to support them or deal with the children that they don't take responsibility for or provide for properly. People like that are precisely why gangs prosper.