NationStates Jolt Archive

Based on a true story:

John Doe has several children, ranging in age from 17 yrs. to 2 yrs old, with multiple women. He is self-employed and claims he cannot afford to support any of them, yet he is often seen in local bars with a wad of cash, buying drinks for friends. Also, his oldest daughter, the 17 yr. old., is very beautiful, so he buys her nice clothes, jewelry and such, so he can show her off, yet he says he cannot afford to give any money to her mother for her support or the support of her siblings.

John Doe has been in and out of jail for non-payment of child support, yet it has not encouraged him to pay any support. While the mothers of his children agree something must be done, they say that putting him in jail is useless, since it hasn't done anything except prevent him from working.

As a result of his latest appearance in court, a judge has decreed that if he fathers any more children, he will be sent to prison UNLESS 1) he pays all back child support owed; 2) he proves the ability to support the children he already has; and 3) He proves the ability to support the new child.

His attorneys and others involved in this sort of dispute claim his rights are being violated and the responsibility of preventing more offspring cannot be placed on him alone. Others claim that having children is not a right, but a responsibility, and if he cannot support them, he should not have any more.

Who is right?

It angers me no end when I hear about another situation where an adult's rights are being violated in respect to children. When will we start putting the rights of the children first? This guy needs to be sterilized then required to hold a full-time job with support payments to the mothers garnished from his wages.

It's a touchy subject, and I know a lot of people here will be against it. However, I myself am all for breeding licenses. There are too many idiots in this world who have children.

And I don't want to be flamed, I know there's holes in my idea. "Who decides who's an idiot?", etc, etc. Bah.

Like most "rights", this is one which should be suspended or revoked if you don't smarten up.

As much as I want to protect childrens' rights, government control of procreation isn't the answer.

By the way, didn't a certain British dystopian author named George Orwell write about that idea of government control over procreation in a certain novel of his? *nudge nudge* ;)

<troll>
Breathing: Does the gov't have the right to control it?
Eating: Does the gov't have the right to control it?
Thinking: Does the gov't have the right to control it?
Walking: Does the gov't have the right to control it?
Free will: who needs it?
</troll>

And the wannabe dictators come out of the woodwork...

This guy needs to be sterilized then required to hold a full-time job

I myself am all for breeding licenses. There are too many idiots in this world who have children.

As much as I want to protect childrens' rights, government control of procreation isn't the answer.

By the way, didn't a certain British dystopian author named George Orwell write about that idea of government control over procreation in a certain novel of his? *nudge nudge* ;)
Are you sure you're not thinking of Aldous Huxley? ;)

I agree with your point, BTW.

The government shouldn't be able to control his procreation, I agree. But at the same time, rights and responsibilities do go together, and sending him to jail won't help anyone, unless he himself develops a strong wish to avoid it. I suppose that his finances need to be checked first, and that maybe he should have some property confiscated to pay for the children. Or something.

Anyway, as to the controlling-procreation issue, as I said, the government shouldn't be able to control it, but I suppose it's difficult to know what to do if the government doesn't do anything.

And the wannabe dictators come out of the woodwork...

I would never want to dictate how another person lives his life. But, when you have someone who willfully commits acts that are detrimental to a child and its welfare, then society needs to step in. Children are our greatest responsibility and no person's rights should be held above those of childrens' rights. Just as you would take a pedophile out of society to protect children, there should be measures in place to guarantee a parent honoring their responsibility to their children. Perhaps neutering is a bit harsh, but it at least prevents the creation of other children to be neglected.

My father was never very good at paying child support. He drove a Jaguar, bought his new wife furs and jewelry, and took trips to the Bahamas. God forbid he have to make child support payments instead of Jaguar payments. Not surprisingly, he voted against a proposed law to garnish child support from peoples paychecks. Fortunately it passed, thanks to voters like me. I'm not too sure I agree with the government controlling procreation, but it can force people to take more responsibility.

My father has about 6 kids, I think... well I know 6. He took care of one of them. The last one he had, he spoiled her so much. He never paid child support for any of us. He worked as a mechanic and he got paid under the table. Finally when I was about to turn 18 he claimed disability for some BS reason and we got a few checks from the government. I was the youngest, except for the one he took care of, so I was the only one that my mom ever recieved support for and even then it was only for a short time. My mom raised me and my 2 brothers on her own, while his 2 daughters that were not my moms, were in and out of foster homes forever.

Honestly, I think people like him should be shot. I agree that there are a lot of people that shouldn't have kids, but I don't think the government should control it. However, I do think that if people are having kids and not taking care of them, the government having them spayed or nuetured is a great idea. The thought of it makes me smile some.

I'll have to be the first to admit that when it comes to children's rights and welfare, I become more than a little radical. Knowing what a couple of my kids went through in their birth families before I got them, makes me want to grab those people and throttle them!

My daughter's birth mother let her date a 26 year old man when she was 11. She started dating before she had her first period. Her "mother's" (I use the term loosely) logic was that the man came from a well-to-do family and if he got Mary pregnant he would marry her and support Mary's mom in a comfortable manner. Instead, he gave Mary some drugs, she went into seizure, and was grand mal epileptic ever after that. This is when I got Mary and her mother allowed adoption rather than face prosecution for child endangerment and possible child prostitution. That was a woman who needed to have her tubes tied, cut, burned, and stomped on. Instead she had 2 more children who ended up in and out of foster care. Both are currently in prison.

When I got Mary, I set the rule that she could not date until she turned 16 and then only if I knew the boy and knew where they were going, what they would be doing, and who else would be there. Mary had 10 kinds of hissies. I couldn't help but notice that when she had children of her own she decided that they wouldn't date until they were 16. I wish she could have been here when puberty hit and they protested the rules. :D

gee if the man were forcing procreation on the mothers of his children then YEAH he should be stopped. but the decision to have sex/babies with him is made by his partners who know just what he is and decide that he is a fine choice of father for their children. same decision a man makes when he has sex with a woman who has 7 children by 7 different men.

its not the governments business. we dont want to end up like china now do we?

as to zooke's daughter's birth mother, she needed to be put in jail for a good long time.

I'll have to be the first to admit that when it comes to children's rights and welfare, I become more than a little radical. Knowing what a couple of my kids went through in their birth families before I got them, makes me want to grab those people and throttle them!

My daughter's birth mother let her date a 26 year old man when she was 11. She started dating before she had her first period. Her "mother's" (I use the term loosely) logic was that the man came from a well-to-do family and if he got Mary pregnant he would marry her and support Mary's mom in a comfortable manner. Instead, he gave Mary some drugs, she went into seizure, and was grand mal epileptic ever after that. This is when I got Mary and her mother allowed adoption rather than face prosecution for child endangerment and possible child prostitution. That was a woman who needed to have her tubes tied, cut, burned, and stomped on. Instead she had 2 more children who ended up in and out of foster care. Both are currently in prison.

Reading stories like that does make it very difficult to argue a rational case against Government intervention in procreation. Likewise, at a common sense level, you can see where the judge in the first post's story is coming from.

That said, the idea of official sanction being required to have a child gives me the horrors. With the best will in the world, politicians are a type, and a part of that personality type is that they think people should be more like themselves, for good or ill. I really don't want them imposing their view on who should get born, it would go straight against diversity, and is therefore thoroughly irrational. And then you'd have to factor in the practicality that a large percentage of the people attracted to controlling other peoples' lives are precisely those people you don't want anywhere near your life.

But of course, intervention is necessary when there's a material risk of actual or potential parents causing that level of harm. Given the fallibity of human-based justice systems, I would prefer that intervention to be reversable.

It's a touchy subject, and I know a lot of people here will be against it. However, I myself am all for breeding licenses. There are too many idiots in this world who have children.

And I don't want to be flamed, I know there's holes in my idea. "Who decides who's an idiot?", etc, etc. Bah.

I agree with that..

What about taking this really seriously... The issue is about people being responsible for their procreative actions, about being able to 'be there' for their children. It is also about the right of every child to have a stable, loving family, without which they cannot thrive as well-rounded people. This has little to do with social misfits. Most children abandoned by one or other parents are born to average people like all of us. It is thus about making all of us responsible with the amazing pro-creative abilities we have.

So, sex outside an established, permanent relationship should be a criminal offence. After all, it is Russian roulette whatever form of contraceptives you use, and the consequences for the innocent children conceived can be fundamental...so no more of this nonsense about 'free love'...nor this rather patronising attitude about 'others' on welfare etc, and let's make people take a more responsible attitude whoever they are...

i know y'all are too young to really appreciate this question but


what if you went to get a breeding license and were told you werent good enough? would you STILL be in favor of it?

we think of these things in terms of keeping OTHER people from parenthood without really considering that it might be US and everyone in our families that might be denied a basic human right.

It angers me no end when I hear about another situation where an adult's rights are being violated in respect to children. When will we start putting the rights of the children first? This guy needs to be sterilized then required to hold a full-time job with support payments to the mothers garnished from his wages.
He obviously has a job somewhere if he has the money to buy clothes for his eldest daughter - clothes and jewelery arn't cheap.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Aldous Huxley? ;)

I agree with your point, BTW.
That is one amazing book...
I see the dilemma here. I don't know what the answer is, or how anyone would enforce it. Whatever happened, there'd be injustice somewhere along the line.

I dont think the government should be involved in deciding who has children. But in the US I think there should be a government program for free vasectomies and tubal ligations. That would make it easy for low income people or anyone for that matter to get this procedure.

How about no procreating unless your I.Q. is 100 or more? We would end up with less parents being stupid and endangering their kids.

i know y'all are too young to really appreciate this question but
what if you went to get a breeding license and were told you werent good enough? would you STILL be in favor of it?
we think of these things in terms of keeping OTHER people from parenthood without really considering that it might be US and everyone in our families that might be denied a basic human right.

In order to adopt, we had to go through an extensive and intrusive investigation for over 6 months. They not only looked into our moral values and life-style, but they also took our income heavily into consideration. If we had not had an adequate income (and we barely did), we would have been denied the opportunity to welcome children with other birth parents into our home to love and raise. I can understand not wanting to place a child in a poverty, government subsidized situation...placing foster kids into those kinds of homes has led to abuse of the system and the children in order to increase household income...but their bottom-line standards were in the upper-middle class range. At times our income fell below that level. When this happened we re-worked the budget and carried on.

Why should a birth parent not be held to standards that require that they provide an adequate level of support and care to a child?

I dont think the government should be involved in deciding who has children. But in the US I think there should be a government program for free vasectomies and tubal ligations. That would make it easy for low income people or anyone for that matter to get this procedure.

How come this preoccupation with money? Some of the worst parents are loaded, for example Michael Jackson, while some of the best parents are destitute (for example in parts of Africa where commitment to children by parents and community is second to non). Being on welfare doesn't make you a bad parent.

It sounds a lot like the US eugenics movement of the early 20th century where forced sterilisations were taking place at government establishments on people deemed 'defective'...and I leave you to guess who was on that list.

because the government isnt good at that kind of thing. to make a judgement on 250million people requires a level of arbitrariness that means way too many bad decisions.

but you didnt answer my question. what if YOU had be told you werent good enough to adopt those children or to create any of your own? for it to be OK for anyone else it would have to be OK for you to receive the same judgement.

How come this preoccupation with money? Some of the worst parents are loaded, for example Michael Jackson, while some of the best parents are destitute (for example in parts of Africa where commitment to children by parents and community is second to non). Being on welfare doesn't make you a bad parent.

It sounds a lot like the US eugenics movement of the early 20th century where forced sterilisations were taking place at government establishments on people deemed 'defective'...and I leave you to guess who was on that list.

not to mention the (all but) forced sterilization of native americans in the last century.

How come this preoccupation with money? Some of the worst parents are loaded, for example Michael Jackson, while some of the best parents are destitute (for example in parts of Africa where commitment to children by parents and community is second to non). Being on welfare doesn't make you a bad parent.

It sounds a lot like the US eugenics movement of the early 20th century where forced sterilisations were taking place at government establishments on people deemed 'defective'...and I leave you to guess who was on that list.
Oh please, offering free disectimoies and tubal litgation is HARDLY eugenics since it is based on allowing people the oppurtunity to atcually choose, not forcing them.

Now if you wanted to whine about neutering criminals, you would have a better argument basis, barely

<good argument>

Why should a birth parent not be held to standards that require that they provide an adequate level of support and care to a child?
I think the counter argument is to do with adoption being a minority, specialised case. If the state is taking positive steps to place a child (or anyone else) in an environment , they have a duty of care and need to ensure that environment is appropriate.

However, the same principle can't be applied to the population as a whole. It implies a degree of state control over everyday lives that has been shown in the past to have appalling consequences. If nothing else, the level of resources required to maintain that level of checking for the general population would be completely unsustainable.

In order to adopt, we had to go through an extensive and intrusive investigation for over 6 months. They not only looked into our moral values and life-style, but they also took our income heavily into consideration. If we had not had an adequate income (and we barely did), we would have been denied the opportunity to welcome children with other birth parents into our home to love and raise. I can understand not wanting to place a child in a poverty, government subsidized situation...placing foster kids into those kinds of homes has led to abuse of the system and the children in order to increase household income...but their bottom-line standards were in the upper-middle class range. At times our income fell below that level. When this happened we re-worked the budget and carried on.

Why should a birth parent not be held to standards that require that they provide an adequate level of support and care to a child?
I appreciate and admire your dedication to your adopted children.
But I don't think it's fair to say that only upper-middle class people should be allowed to reproduce. There's no way I'd be here if that were the case - my parents are volunteer workers. But they're the best parents I could ever have asked for. In my experience, having a lower income is not a prerequisite to being a bad parent; if anything it often keeps the parents more grounded.
Never try and analyse if someone is a good parent or not by how much money they have - it is NOT the answer.

Oh please, offering free disectimoies and tubal litgation is HARDLY eugenics since it is based on allowing people the oppurtunity to atcually choose, not forcing them.

Now if you wanted to whine about neutering criminals, you would have a better argument basis, barely

I wasn't speaking about free disectomies but about all this talk about poorer folk on welfare being somehow bad parents etc...but there is no such thing as a free lunch...and sooner or later pressure will be applied, incentives given, and then it is one step to being a requirement for the people no one else really cares about...no one would say a thing. Or maybe I'm being too paranoid about big government and the plots of international coercive organisations???

because the government isnt good at that kind of thing. to make a judgement on 250million people requires a level of arbitrariness that means way too many bad decisions.

but you didnt answer my question. what if YOU had be told you werent good enough to adopt those children or to create any of your own? for it to be OK for anyone else it would have to be OK for you to receive the same judgement.

If laws were enacted to regulate parenting, there would have to be pretty standard and obvious guidelines. If you loved children and wanted to be a good parent, these guidelines would probably come naturally. If they didn't and you were not a responsible parent, then the law would come into effect to protect the child. If I were deemed a poor parent, then I would have to take the reasons for this decision into consideration and see if there was a way to improve myself. If it is illegal to abuse or molest a child, why should it be less illegal to neglect and abandon them? If pedophiles have to publicly register as sex offenders and be denied poximity to children, why should a "sperm donor" or "baby factory" be allowed to continue creating children they don't want? Birth control is free in this country if you can't afford to pay for it. If you won't make a responsible choice to avoid neglecting your children by not having them, then that decision will have to be made by someone with childrens' best interests in mind.

If it is illegal to abuse or molest a child, why should it be less illegal to neglect and abandon them?
Umm... it's not.
Children's and Young Persons Act 1933.
R. v. Gibbens and Proctor

i know y'all are too young to really appreciate this question but


what if you went to get a breeding license and were told you werent good enough? would you STILL be in favor of it?

we think of these things in terms of keeping OTHER people from parenthood without really considering that it might be US and everyone in our families that might be denied a basic human right.


I expect, if that was the case, I'd be disappointed. But, it would be for purely selfish reasons, and would not make the concept of breeding licenses any less valid.

It's a pity the world seems to work like that. Something that could prevent a lot of child abuse and neglect, is considered an abomination because a few people will be indignant about not being able to behave as irresponsibly as they like.

Birth control is free in this country if you can't afford to pay for it. If you won't make a responsible choice to avoid neglecting your children by not having them, then that decision will have to be made by someone with childrens' best interests in mind.

But contraception is a risky business... I know a lady with six children from three different fathers who even got pregnanat after her tubes were tied. The only way to regulate parenthood is to make the legitimate context for any sexual activity to be whether or not the couple have reached a stable and committed relationship - that in the end is the baseline of what a child needs in order to grow up happy and well rounded. So prosecute those having and promoting casual sex.

I appreciate and admire your dedication to your adopted children.
But I don't think it's fair to say that only upper-middle class people should be allowed to reproduce. There's no way I'd be here if that were the case - my parents are volunteer workers. But they're the best parents I could ever have asked for. In my experience, having a lower income is not a prerequisite to being a bad parent; if anything it often keeps the parents more grounded.
Never try and analyse if someone is a good parent or not by how much money they have - it is NOT the answer.

That was not my intention at all. I feel that our financial status had too much influence on our ability to adopt. If we had not been fortunate enough to have met their criteria and had been in a lower-middle class bracket, we would not have been allowed to adopt....even though we would have still provided a safe, loving, stable home. It doesn't make sense to place a child into a home that is unable to support itself when self-supporting homes are available. On the other hand, millions of people live in poverty, yet manage to provide the same important elements necessary to raise a child properly. Financial status should never be used to judge a person's capabilities as a parent.

That was not my intention at all. I feel that our financial status had too much influence on our ability to adopt. If we had not been fortunate enough to have met their criteria and had been in a lower-middle class bracket, we would not have been allowed to adopt....even though we would have still provided a safe, loving, stable home. It doesn't make sense to place a child into a home that is unable to support itself when self-supporting homes are available. On the other hand, millions of people live in poverty, yet manage to provide the same important elements necessary to raise a child properly. Financial status should never be used to judge a person's capabilities as a parent.
In which case, I apologise for misreading, and agree with you!

I expect, if that was the case, I'd be disappointed. But, it would be for purely selfish reasons, and would not make the concept of breeding licenses any less valid.

It's a pity the world seems to work like that. Something that could prevent a lot of child abuse and neglect, is considered an abomination because a few people will be indignant about not being able to behave as irresponsibly as they like.
No, the problem is that for licensing to be appropriate, it would mean identifying large numbers of people not qualifying for a license. For it to be practical, the rules would need to be simplistic. So you'd end up with a lot of people barred from having children (which cuts to the essence of peoples' self-perception), probably a large number of them unfairly so. What's more, you'd probably have a lot of 'bad' parents (however defined) slipping under the net and getting their licenses.

No, the problem is that for licensing to be appropriate, it would mean identifying large numbers of people not qualifying for a license. For it to be practical, the rules would need to be simplistic. So you'd end up with a lot of people barred from having children (which cuts to the essence of peoples' self-perception), probably a large number of them unfairly so. What's more, you'd probably have a lot of 'bad' parents (however defined) slipping under the net and getting their licenses.
Another problem is how to set forth the criteria, what would be relavent. According to who(m?) was in control of the process would affect the people.

What about people who are mentally ill? I'm bipolar, and while it may not make it impossible to give a child a stable home, it would make it considerably harder. Plus there is a strong likelyhood the child would be bipolar. I promise I won't take it personally if someone thinks I shouldn't have children, since I've already decided the same thing.

No, the problem is that for licensing to be appropriate, it would mean identifying large numbers of people not qualifying for a license. For it to be practical, the rules would need to be simplistic. So you'd end up with a lot of people barred from having children (which cuts to the essence of peoples' self-perception), probably a large number of them unfairly so. What's more, you'd probably have a lot of 'bad' parents (however defined) slipping under the net and getting their licenses.


So? Obviously the system won't be perfect, but no system is. Innocent people occasionally get sent to prison, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't prosecute people suspected of crimes - overall, the effect is that large numbers of criminals are prosecuted. It certainly isn't impossible to come up with a system of rules to support breeding licenses, even if it takes five years of arguing.

I don't see the occasional bad parent slipping through the net as some kind of major problem, since as it stands at present, every bad parent on the entire planet automatically has a license to have as many children as they like.

Another problem is how to set forth the criteria, what would be relavent. According to who(m?) was in control of the process would affect the people.

Society does of course have such a licensing system...its called marriage. Society's endorsement of a couple who in turn commit themselves publically to work for the common good and to raise children. (This is not a personal commitment of enduring affection, that's a personal thing). If a couple haven't reached the point of such a commitment then the very basic level for child care hasn't been reached. Now, that might not be good enough for the racial/social purists, but it makes sense.

But contraception is a risky business... I know a lady with six children from three different fathers who even got pregnanat after her tubes were tied. The only way to regulate parenthood is to make the legitimate context for any sexual activity to be whether or not the couple have reached a stable and committed relationship - that in the end is the baseline of what a child needs in order to grow up happy and well rounded. So prosecute those having and promoting casual sex.

Legislating morals doesn't work...prohibition for instance. People will continue to do what they wish, they just won't be so open about it. You could argue that the threat of prosecution would influence peoples' sexual practices, but, consider that the same irresponsibility that leads to unwanted pregnancies also leads to STDs. AIDS infection is on the rise so if people don't worry about a horrible death enough to control themselves, a few months in jail won't do it either.

Some of you may remember a recent case in which a judge ordered a woman to be sterilized. She had 7 drug-addicted babies by 7 different fathers and had shaken her youngest baby to death. She was given 90 days to be sterilized or to go to jail for manslaughter. That the sentence is totally disproportionate to the crime is obvious. What needs to be considered is why was this woman allowed to give birth to 7 children poisoned with drugs that she had put into her body? The first one born should have had her up on charges of child endangerment and possibly attempted murder.

So? Obviously the system won't be perfect, but no system is. Innocent people occasionally get sent to prison, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't prosecute people suspected of crimes - overall, the effect is that large numbers of criminals are prosecuted. It certainly isn't impossible to come up with a system of rules to support breeding licenses, even if it takes five years of arguing.

I don't see the occasional bad parent slipping through the net as some kind of major problem, since as it stands at present, every bad parent on the entire planet automatically has a license to have as many children as they like.
I think this where we differ: I don't see the number of failures in any likely scenario being small, and thus not insignificant. I see this as being firmly in witchhunt territory, and any serious attempts to regulate that as taking us straight to a police state.

Even if the process could be made to work, I agree with Kervoskia - I do not want politicians or officials allocated that level of control over the general population's personal lives.

Remember this is my point: not that government intervention in bad parenting is wrong, but that a licencing system is a really bad idea.

I wasn't speaking about free disectomies but about all this talk about poorer folk on welfare being somehow bad parents etc...but there is no such thing as a free lunch...and sooner or later pressure will be applied, incentives given, and then it is one step to being a requirement for the people no one else really cares about...no one would say a thing. Or maybe I'm being too paranoid about big government and the plots of international coercive organisations???
OK then I have no idea what we are talking about, all the bouncing around is confusing me.

Society does of course have such a licensing system...its called marriage. Society's endorsement of a couple who in turn commit themselves publically to work for the common good and to raise children. (This is not a personal commitment of enduring affection, that's a personal thing). If a couple haven't reached the point of such a commitment then the very basic level for child care hasn't been reached. Now, that might not be good enough for the racial/social purists, but it makes sense.
It is possible for two people to be very committed to each other and not eb married so that strikes that criteria out.

What about people who are mentally ill? I'm bipolar, and while it may not make it impossible to give a child a stable home, it would make it considerably harder. Plus there is a strong likelyhood the child would be bipolar. I promise I won't take it personally if someone thinks I shouldn't have children, since I've already decided the same thing.

would you still be OK with it if it weren't your decision at all? if by virtue of a diagnosis of bipolar you were forever barred from the possiblity of having children? to me, there is a big difference in MY deciding not to have (more) children, and the government deciding it for me.

What about people who are mentally ill? I'm bipolar, and while it may not make it impossible to give a child a stable home, it would make it considerably harder. Plus there is a strong likelyhood the child would be bipolar. I promise I won't take it personally if someone thinks I shouldn't have children, since I've already decided the same thing.

Some forms of mental illness do not prevent you from being a good parent. If anything, it may give you an insight into emotional problems the child may develop. I'm a rapid-cycle bipolar, myself. I can flip from one exteme emotion to another in minutes. I tend towards manic behavior most of the time, but when I do hit a low my depression can be very extreme. So, every morning, I take lithium and am able to keep mood-swings to a normal level. I have to have a blood test done each month to check on liver function, but that is far preferable to the alternative. As my kids came with special problems in reaction to their handicaps and their poor home lives, I was better able to identify, understand, and help them deal with their emotional issues.

As for the hereditary part...when I was finally diagnosed (everyone thought I just really loved housework), my doctor asked who in my family had exhibited certain behavior patterns. It was my Mom all the way down the line. Yet, she was a terrific Mom and a surgical nurse. Her house was really really clean, too.

Legislating morals doesn't work...The first one born should have had her up on charges of child endangerment and possibly attempted murder.

I think you begin by disagreeing with me but concede the point with your final sentence: better sentencing is a deterrance.

And you are never going to avoid having some children born into difficult, undesireable situations...laws simply try to contain the problem. Unfortunately we think of governments solving problems.

So, laws should be minimal, and universal in order to be just and avoid being repressive. Requiring people to have reached a point of maturity before engaging in full sexual activity is a tried and tested method which the niave permissives of the post-war generation have tried to throw out.

Oh please, offering free disectimoies and tubal litgation is HARDLY eugenics since it is based on allowing people the oppurtunity to atcually choose, not forcing them.

Now if you wanted to whine about neutering criminals, you would have a better argument basis, barely

Might want to check your spelling here, disectimoies?

I think this where we differ: I don't see the number of failures in any likely scenario being small, and thus not insignificant. I see this as being firmly in witchhunt territory, and any serious attempts to regulate that as taking us straight to a police state.

Even if the process could be made to work, I agree with Kervoskia - I do not want politicians or officials allocated that level of control over the general population's personal lives.

Remember this is my point: not that government intervention in bad parenting is wrong, but that a licencing system is a really bad idea.

who wants these decisions to be made by POLITICANS??

these are the same people who passed <insert some law you despised>

you could end up wtih a law so vague that it only barrs those people that the local regulator dislikes.

you could end up with a law so specific that it doesnt really apply to everyone it should apply to

you could end up with a law designed to appease the constituancy of the majority party in congress (think of how the christian fundamentalists would craft such a law)

you could end up with a law so complex that anyone who is denied a license (and has enough money) can sue to get it reversed (and win). just think about tax law as an example of how complex it could get.

the last thing you are likely to end up with is a law that works to deny every patently unfit person the right to breed while allowing all those who would make "good enough" parents a license.

Might want to check your spelling here, disectimoies?
You might want to check the get-a-life meter.

You might want to check the get-a-life meter.

Your spelling is incorrect, but don't worry about it. My mother was one of the brightest people I have ever known, yet she could barely spell her name correctly. Spelling just didn't click with her. She excelled in all else, though.

If you want, do what I do...type everything in Word, run spellcheck, then copy and paste. People will think you're a genius...I know they think I am. ;)

No one seems to want a politician to decide the issues at hand. And no one seems to want obvious to all situation to continue. So why no let a judge decide on a case by case basis when such a problem comes before him?
This allows someone to intervene with authority in a bad situation, while minimizing the danger and damage of unfair efforts.
At least it would keep these people spending their time in the court system rather than in bed.
:(

who wants these decisions to be made by POLITICANS??

these are the same people who passed <insert some law you despised>

you could end up wtih a law so vague that it only barrs those people that the local regulator dislikes.

you could end up with a law so specific that it doesnt really apply to everyone it should apply to

you could end up with a law designed to appease the constituancy of the majority party in congress (think of how the christian fundamentalists would craft such a law)

you could end up with a law so complex that anyone who is denied a license (and has enough money) can sue to get it reversed (and win). just think about tax law as an example of how complex it could get.

the last thing you are likely to end up with is a law that works to deny every patently unfit person the right to breed while allowing all those who would make "good enough" parents a license.
I agree with you 100%. Politicians would be just about the worst people possible to take such decisions, except for ........

well, just about anybody else who wants to do it. The people who want to do such stuff, who care enough about it, will have their own agenda, and not neccesarily a very nice one.

One of the reasons I would be against the idea of licensing births.

No one seems to want a politician to decide the issues at hand. And no one seems to want obvious to all situation to continue. So why no let a judge decide on a case by case basis when such a problem comes before him?
This allows someone to intervene with authority in a bad situation, while minimizing the danger and damage of unfair efforts.
At least it would keep these people spending their time in the court system rather than in bed.
:(
judges have to go by THE LAW
so some politician still has to decide on the rules

i think it would be better to have more stern punishments for those who are shown to be unfit. as in the case of zooke's daughter. her birthmother would have way less chance of making more children if she was in prison for abusing the one she already had.

its as if its wrong to abuse someone elses kid but not so bad to abuse your own. the law looks more at the parents and their rights than at the children and theirs.

plus, good adoptive parents aside, there is a huge problem with foster care. too many children are removed from an abusive home and stuck in a system that abuses them further. the supply of "zookes" is limited.

And the wannabe dictators come out of the woodwork...
So looking out for the children (the helpless ones, btw) instead of protecting thier parent's rights to have children endlessly and not support them is WRONG?!?!

judges have to go by THE LAW
so some politician still has to decide on the rules

i think it would be better to have more stern punishments for those who are shown to be unfit. as in the case of zooke's daughter. her birthmother would have way less chance of making more children if she was in prison for abusing the one she already had.

its as if its wrong to abuse someone elses kid but not so bad to abuse your own. the law looks more at the parents and their rights than at the children and theirs.

plus, good adoptive parents aside, there is a huge problem with foster care. too many children are removed from an abusive home and stuck in a system that abuses them further. the supply of "zookes" is limited.

Thank you for the positive, but I don't think I am so unique. My oldest son, who is legally blind and makes in excess of 300k a year (little stink), and his wife, who is a teacher, have 2 daughters. They wanted to adopt a little boy and would have taken 2 children if the little boy had a sibling. Because he has a visual impairment, he is considered unfit to adopt. He and my daughter-in-law are fantastic parents. How would his poor eyesight have prevented him from being a great Dad?

Adoptive parents are held under closer scrutiny by social agencies and the public than birth parents. That's why I don't understand how that couple in Florida were able to torture and abuse their adopted children without anyone intervening.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Aldous Huxley? ;)

Actually, both did. :)

Actually, both did. :)
IIRC in '1984' the Government controlled relationships rather than procreation, though I may be wrong on that. Or are you thinking of another of Orwell's works?

In the U.S.? The right to procreation is a fundamental right. He could take this to the Supreme Court and win.

What about people who are mentally ill? I'm bipolar, and while it may not make it impossible to give a child a stable home, it would make it considerably harder. Plus there is a strong likelyhood the child would be bipolar. I promise I won't take it personally if someone thinks I shouldn't have children, since I've already decided the same thing.

Something that might help you feel a little better about yourself...did you know that most bipolars are very intelligent and that all geniuses are bipolar? That's why it is called the brilliant madness.

In the U.S.? The right to procreation is a fundamental right. He could take this to the Supreme Court and win.

That's why we want to change the law.

Anyways, my vision was that the politicians make a law along the lines of "You must have a breeding license to have children." Then you let specialised centres deal with the actual licenses. Like with education.

I read an editorial that suggested the best way to pull it off would be to inject every person, at birth, with a powerful, long-lasting contraceptive. Then, when they want to have children, they get their license and are given an antidote to said contraceptive, allowing them say...72 hours to conceive. That could work.

As for the whole "sue the case" etc, well, that's a fault of the American legal system. That should be changed too. (Don't ask me how. I'm not American.)

I'm against the whole notion, they'd just use it to deny white nationalists, calvinists, and other not "politically correct" folks, the right to have kids, hoping that our beliefs would die with us.


Anyway, I don't plan to ever have the gov't support my family, when I have a family, I'll support it, and I'll only has as many kids as can reasonably be supported.

Thus it really isn't the governments business unless folks are on public assistance and they are draining the system by continuing to have kids.

In the U.S.? The right to procreation is a fundamental right. He could take this to the Supreme Court and win.
You mean the guy who has been threatened jail if he has another kid? I doubt he would win if it got to the Supreme Court: he is not being forced to stop procreating -not castrated or anything - he is being removed from a setting where he is able to procreate. Plus they can put him in jail for being a dead beat dad anyway

Are you sure you're not thinking of Aldous Huxley? ;)
Actually, now that you mention him I believe it was both of them:

Orwell (1984) - Procreation is only for creating new subjects of the Party, gov't stamps out the emotional part of sex, etc

Huxley (Brave New World) - Humans are bred by the government itself (or that's the gist, from what I've heard)

How about simply requiring a basic parenting class to all pregnant women? It would have to be extensive, but it might "flag" some problem situations? Let's say it was a 4 hour class one day/night/weekend, and if you pass, you get a certificate. If you fail, you must repeat the class or get more help. Yes, I know you run into problems of literacy and such, but first of all, you would weed out parents who couldn't even be bothered to take the 4 hours out of their life. You would also be able to emphasize really important info, such as not shaking a baby.

This certificate would be required in order to get any public assistance for your child, for the baby to get a social security number, etc. And I know this puts the emphasis on women, but it seems that most of the single parents ARe women. And wouldn't it be nice if women could learn how to distinguish the losers from good partners? (That's a toughie, as it took me many years and many losers to find a "good one", lol.)

I also believe that mandatory drug testing should happen at some point in the pregnancy. I don't know if I would test for marijuana or alcohol, although I believe both may be risky to the baby, but I would test for cocaine and heroin and other drugs that have caused drug addiction problems in newborns.

As for the idiot who keeps fathering children without offering support, I don't believe castration is a bad option. Zooke is right, prospective parents who want to adopt are scrutinized carefully, yet it seems like any man or woman who doesn't have infertility issues can go out and procreate and no one questions their abilities. If the government has the right to tell loving, capable parents that they don't qualify to adopt a child, why shouldn't the government be able to apply the same standards to people procreating?

Actually, now that you mention him I believe it was both of them:

Orwell (1984) - Procreation is only for creating new subjects of the Party, gov't stamps out the emotional part of sex, etc

Huxley (Brave New World) - Humans are bred by the government itself (or that's the gist, from what I've heard)
I stand corrected. I plead length of time since I read 1984 and failing memory due to age. :)