NationStates Jolt Archive

This is hypothetical because it would probably be impossible to legislate who can and can't have kids.

Some people are of the opinion that the "right" to reproduce should extend to everyone. Whether the person is mentally retarded, severely mentally ill, drug addicted, or has a previous extensive history of violent crime.

I suppose everyone's seen a news story in the past about a child being tortured and abused by his/her "parents" and considered for a moment whether there should be a test to determine whether or not someone can be trusted with children. This point of view sees child rearing as a responsibility.

My question is whether there should be restrictions on who can have a child, and if so what are the criterea for denying the right to reproduce.

I honestly can't see what the criteria could possibly be for any sort of 'license to parent', though something akin to what happens now when someone wants to adopt might be a good step. A home check, some questions about lifestyle and ways of dealing with stress...conversations about expectations and parenting strategies, and offers of support...all these things might help. However, I don't support stopping anyone from having children if that is what they really want. Unwanted pregnancies we could be doing more to stop, for sure.

Edit: first reply again..I feel like I'm stalking you!

I know I shouldn't, but when I see obese people with babies I think that if you can't look after yourself properly then there's no way you can adaquetly look after kids. This would probably extend to the infeabled, those who can't look after themselves.

Having children is both a responsibility and a right.

Therefore irresponsible people should get abortions.

Of course many children result from irresponsible pregnancies... :headbang:

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I honestly can't see what the criteria could possibly be for any sort of 'license to parent', though something akin to what happens now when someone wants to adopt might be a good step. A home check, some questions about lifestyle and ways of dealing with stress...conversations about expectations and parenting strategies, and offers of support...all these things might help. However, I don't support stopping anyone from having children if that is what they really want. Unwanted pregnancies we could be doing more to stop, for sure.

Edit: first reply again..I feel like I'm stalking you!


Couples that get pregnant should be evaluated too. I know when my wife was admitted to deliver our third child, the nurse had a form to fill out that included if my wife was happy at home or if she was threatened or in danger. They asked me to leave the room and then asked her in private. I guess they would have intevened some how if my wife told them I or someone else was abusive to her.
Maybe this could start at the first prenatal visits. Maybe alcohol or drug abuse could be dealt with before birth. Smoking. Gluttony. Etc...

I feel that there are both rights and responsibilities involved in parenthood. One really SHOULD be made more aware of these in Sex Ed.

The topic question is a nonsense question. There is no such thing as a right or privilege that does not come with responsibilities. For instance, you have the right to free speech, but you are responsible for the consequences of anything you say. For those with the privilege of driving, you have a responsibility to avoid becoming a danger to yourself and others.

Is there any greater responsibility than the absolute control of a helpless human life?

Couples that get pregnant should be evaluated too. I know when my wife was admitted to deliver our third child, the nurse had a form to fill out that included if my wife was happy at home or if she was threatened or in danger. They asked me to leave the room and then asked her in private. I guess they would have intevened some how if my wife told them I or someone else was abusive to her.
Maybe this could start at the first prenatal visits. Maybe alcohol or drug abuse could be dealt with before birth. Smoking. Gluttony. Etc...
In many communities, this does happen...but not in all, and many people are never visited, or made aware of the supports available to them. As annoying as it was to have the health nurse visit me three times after the birth of my first child, it was actually a bit reassuring. She was checking for post partum depressions, discussed how I handled stress, and actually gave me information on a great moms and tots program at the library which got me out of the house once a week. Unfortunately, there is very little these people can do if they DO see that someone is abusing drugs or alcohol, or is perhaps not the best parent they could be. Short of serious abuse, intervention is a tricky matter and generally avoided.

The topic question is a nonsense question. There is no such thing as a right or privilege that does not come with responsibilities. For instance, you have the right to free speech, but you are responsible for the consequences of anything you say. For those with the privilege of driving, you have a responsibility to avoid becoming a danger to yourself and others.

Is there any greater responsibility than the absolute control of a helpless human life?
I don't think it is a nonsense question. It's based on a particular case. Imagine that someone had a child, but was incapable of taking the full responsibility for the rearing of that child. Should they have the right give life to that human being if they are unable to shoulder the responsabilities that come with it?

Edit: I'm not just talking about the physically or mentally handicapped (nor am I saying that all such people are incapable of taking that responsibility)...I'm also referring to drug addicts, or people with other problems that cause them to be unable to take care of themselves or their children.

The topic question is a nonsense question. There is no such thing as a right or privilege that does not come with responsibilities. For instance, you have the right to free speech, but you are responsible for the consequences of anything you say. For those with the privilege of driving, you have a responsibility to avoid becoming a danger to yourself and others.

Is there any greater responsibility than the absolute control of a helpless human life?
In situations like driving, where there is a right combined with responsibility, government issues licenses based on tests. Same with firearms in many places. Is parenthood much different? Should there be testing and licensing for parents?

In situations like driving, where there is a right combined with responsibility, government issues licenses based on tests. Same with firearms in many places. Is parenthood much different? Should there be testing and licensing for parents?
Testing and licensing, no. Training and support, yes.

Being able to have kids is just a right.
Looking after them when they show up is a responsibility. I think that being a poor parent means extra burden not only upon the child, but upon society as a whole as we deal with the repercussions.

Some people can rise to the task, and be there as good parents. But I'd bet that many of the same people who could pass a parenting test would still be crappy parents. Knowing something in theory is not the same as being able to be level-headed when your kid is throwing a Grade A tantrum in public. The real question is: Even if you could make a parenting test, how could you stop people from making babies anyway?

Easy Peasy

Its a responsibility!!!!

In the Starship Troopers movie, a liscence was required to have a baby, and it's a lot easier if you become a citizen (this was why one of the girls joined the mobile infantry, revealed during the shower scene when the writer asked people why they joined up)

Do you people know how much this "testing" would cost the tax-payer. too much, it should be payed for by the parents to be.

I feel that there are both rights and responsibilities involved in parenthood. One really SHOULD be made more aware of these in Sex Ed.Well, the sex ed teacher at my high school advised me at one point, and I could suggest it to him.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

throwing a Grade A tantrum in public.
That's when you hit them. It only takes maybe two times before they get it then you can just continue loving them like a child.

There are some social services (in the USA) in place to remove children from unfit homes. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have the organization or funds to consistently put into better ones, and all too often the rights of the parents seem to override what's best for the child. For example, taking a child away from fit foster parents to place them back with a recently sort of detoxed biological parent.

I really wish our society would move away from the expectation that couples Must have children. Too many people have kids because it's expected, not because they really want them and can properly care for them. I support more parenting education in high schools, so people have a better idea of what they're getting themselves into.

We should make it so you need a liscence to reproduce, then problems of overpopulation could be controlled.

good point..............kill all humans giant fire breathing lizards will rule. with the help of my smiley's i will take over the world as godzilla the hun.hahahahaha, die scum
:) :mp5:
:D :sniper:

any way sex ed is kinda crap

We should make it so you need a liscence to reproduce, then problems of overpopulation could be controlled.

nice in theory, but the population issues are in 2nd and 3rd world nations - they can't even take feed their citizens so how do you expect them to licence reproduction?

Oh - and beating your children doesnt teach them respect: it teaches them fear.

Do you people know how much this "testing" would cost the tax-payer. too much, it should be payed for by the parents to be.
What would you say to people who then claim that paying for the testing discriminates against poor parents? Granted, raising a kid is more expensive than any reasonable fee, but some people will still argue that the licensing fee is discriminatory.

it teaches them fear.
If they're scared I'll give them a weapon and teach them to use it.

I would never raise a child unless it was already 10 years old, it's the early stages that would make me homicidal.

If they're scared I'll give them a weapon and teach them to use it.

I would never raise a child unless it was already 10 years old, it's the early stages that would make me homicidal.

You should probably wait 'till you are at least 30 before having kids. Better yet: take a course, get a license...

In many communities, this does happen...but not in all, and many people are never visited, or made aware of the supports available to them. As annoying as it was to have the health nurse visit me three times after the birth of my first child, it was actually a bit reassuring. She was checking for post partum depressions, discussed how I handled stress, and actually gave me information on a great moms and tots program at the library which got me out of the house once a week. Unfortunately, there is very little these people can do if they DO see that someone is abusing drugs or alcohol, or is perhaps not the best parent they could be. Short of serious abuse, intervention is a tricky matter and generally avoided.


I'm not for getting into people's lives any messing around, but some people either shouldnt have kids, or need some serious straightening out before they do. So they dont cultivate another crop of morons.

And I love all the crackdowns on smoking here and smoking there. No matter where the smoking occurs, an adult can choose to get away from it, if they dont like it. I'm not a cigarette smoker. I dont understand why adults smoking in their homes and cars with their kids there is ok, if it isnt in a bar or restaurant. Kids cant get away. Is this child abuse?
Just a thought.

blah blah blah about kids in cars with smokers.
Is this child abuse?
Just a thought.
Yeah, I saw that ad on TV.

You see, us british people try to tell the parents that watch TV not to smoke arouns their kids.

Quote from somewhere, it was a while ago, some survey:
In all areas the numebr of smokers in the UK is going down, except in teenage girls, where the number of smokers is actually increasing.

I think it should be required to have a license, because I have two kids and am not a good parent! I am just too cruel probably! Well I am Scott the Cruel, go figure! Too be a " GOOD PARENT", I think you have to be somewhat responsible! But you can always be a " BAD PARENT " AND BE CRUEL AT THE SAME TIME! Thats the beauty of this country, choices, choices, and more choices! As far as it being a RIGHT, it is not! :fluffle:

I also find it interesting that a hospital would have a woman fill out a secret form to determine if she's being abused, etc....

... but wouldn't pull the man aside to ask things like:

1) Did you plan this child, or were you misled into not using birth control because she stated clearly that she was and that you wouldn't need a rubber?

2) Do you feel abused, physically or emotionally? Do you feel that having this child might have been a ploy to keep or otherwise restrain you?

3) She is being asked right now if you abuse her. What do you think she'll answer and why?

4) Do you feel that, in this relationship, you serve a purpose other than sperm donor and mobile wallet storage and filling? If so, what is that purpose?

BLAH!
Yeah, when my parents divoced my mother lied a lot about my old man, saying he was violent and such.

She was a complete (female dog)

In situations like driving, where there is a right combined with responsibility, government issues licenses based on tests. Same with firearms in many places. Is parenthood much different? Should there be testing and licensing for parents?
Actually, driving is not a right. It is a privilege. There is a distinct difference. A right is protected by law, and can only be lost via due process. A privilege can be revoked at any time.

Conception and birth are neither rights nor privileges, because they're ordinary biological processes. Do you need a constitutionally protected right to pee?

Because they're biological processes, any attempt to regulate is doomed to failure. What do you do when someone violates the regulation? Terminate the pregnancy? I think a lot of pro-choicers would find themselves in league with the anti-choice lobby when we start terminating pregnancies for failure to fill out the proper paperwork. Taking the children away isn't any better.

Hey, I Got It! Steal, Kill, And Destroy!! What A Great Motto! By The Way Dorkium Is It?? Speak English, Don't Be A Dork!! A Woman Would Not Fill Out A Form Saying That She Is Abused, She Would Likely Never Admit To Being Abused, Because Of Fear!! Plus She Proabably Likes It Anyhow, Some Women Have That Weird Fetish!!

You're strange. But that's groovy.

Don't follow societies rules, fight the man, help us bring peace by joining the military today!

Actually, driving is not a right. It is a privilege. There is a distinct difference. A right is protected by law, and can only be lost via due process. A privilege can be revoked at any time.

Conception and birth are neither rights nor privileges, because they're ordinary biological processes. Do you need a constitutionally protected right to pee?

Because they're biological processes, any attempt to regulate is doomed to failure. What do you do when someone violates the regulation? Terminate the pregnancy? I think a lot of pro-choicers would find themselves in league with the anti-choice lobby when we start terminating pregnancies for failure to fill out the proper paperwork. Taking the children away isn't any better.
1 Ok, that's true

2 Yes, they're biological processes, but try peeing in the fountain in the middle of a crowded mall and see if the law doesn't intervene.

3 Take the kid away and give it to a couple awaiting adoption then sterilize the mother and father maybe.

then sterilize the mother and father maybe.
Plus put them in jail for breaking the law.
It probably wouldn't be too long a sentance, like just 6 months.

i can think of no law regulating who can or cant have children that wouldnt be abused. think of the coerced sterilization of black and indians. its not a good idea.

3 Take the kid away and give it to a couple awaiting adoption then sterilize the mother and father maybe.
Plus put them in jail for breaking the law.
It probably wouldn't be too long a sentance, like just 6 months.

Don't be surprised when a government this dictatorial gets around to throwing you into the salt mines.

Hey, I'm a grunt, you expect me to be smart?

w000! British infantry! Get some! Get some! Hoo-ah!

*banging of helmeted heads comences*

Having children is not necessarily a "right". No person has definitive "rights" to have a child. Though a couple may procreate, or they may adopt (if they can show responsibiility over the child). It is one of those "grey" areas. While a couple may freely procreate, with the child comes automatic responsibilities... However no one has definitve rights to "adopt" a child... So I would say having children is a RESPONSBILITY that ensues from a free act [right](in procreation), and those who adopt must show the ability to be RESPONSIBLE for the child. Thus, having the child and caring for it is far more of a RESPONSIBILITY than it is a right.

Don't be surprised when a government this dictatorial gets around to throwing you into the salt mines.
Yay! Salt!

i can think of no law regulating who can or cant have children that wouldnt be abused. think of the coerced sterilization of black and indians. its not a good idea.


<devil's advocate>
It's not a liberal idea, I'll grant you.

But from what basis can you conclude it's not a "good" idea.

Although it might not fly under a modern constitutional test, I think you'd find it difficult to make a convincing argument that the coerced sterilization of various individuals that has taken place in the past has adversely affected any society in any way. Although the concept might be distasteful, certainly not a "modern" way of thinking, and maybe even unfair from various points of view, I'm hard-pressed to conclude that it's a BAD idea because it doesn't make things worse for the bulk of whatever society we're talking about, and likely improves that society in some way.

At worst, it's a neutral idea with unpleasant overtones, and at best it's a startlingly good idea if the goal of a society is to control all aspects of its growth and population.

We should make it so you need a liscence to reproduce, then problems of overpopulation could be controlled.
Right. And we would charge a nominal fee for this 'right'. And we would make sure that only rich, healthy, good looking people were qualified...and so on down the slipperly slope.

How about a limit of one child per couple.

I'm mainly looking at ways to control the overpopulation now.

Have you ever seen one of those american cities? So many people in such small space......

Having children is neither a right nor a a privilege. It is a way to survive.

Yes, there are people unfit to be parents, but, to designate child-rearing as either is simply silly. Yes, there are accidental pregnancies, but there are planned ones.

And you know, just because you may seem fit to be a parent doesn't mean you are, and just because you seem unparent-like doesn't mean squat either. Anyone can past a licensing test. A real test is to be a parent for real.

No, I have no children. I just think that parenting is a learning process. It's like life; no matter how much advice you get, how much you learn by reading, eventually you're going to have to take off the training wheels and learn to ride the bike yourself, and take the good with the bad.

Right. And we would charge a nominal fee for this 'right'. And we would make sure that only rich, healthy, good looking people were qualified...and so on down the slipperly slope.
No, there'd be some kind of way to prove it, I can't think up an entire system in 5 minutes, but you'd have ways to make sure it's equal, free, and has failsafes blah blah blah

How about a limit of one child per couple.

I'm mainly looking at ways to control the overpopulation now.

Have you ever seen one of those american cities? So many people in such small space......
Overpopulated? Please, in ten years New York city will be considred a medium sized city. Cities in third world countries will have scores of millions of residents. US citizens are reproducing less. Third world people are still having loads of kids.

No, there'd be some kind of way to prove it, I can't think up an entire system in 5 minutes, but you'd have ways to make sure it's equal, free, and has failsafes blah blah blah

The writer Larry Niven proposed "birthright lotteries" for the people that were not granted the right to a child by being exceptionally talented, smart, well built or rich. Breeding for luck in other words.

No, I do not think this is a good idea.

I see people everyday and think that there is no way that they should have been allowed to have children. I hear of the child abuse that goes on every day and think that we need to do something to stop people from having children after they have been caught abusing them (of course we could get tougher laws on child abuse).


Then I think about what the government could do if it had the power to say who could and could not have children. All of you who are in favor of licensing people to have children need to stop and think about that. As bad at some people are at parenting I'm not willing to allow the government to say who can and can't have children.


As for people who have children that are mentally handicapped and perfectly capable of physically bearing children but not metally capable of rearing them then it's still up to the parents of that person to decide. Most people that I have known in that situation have had their mentally retarded children sterilised to prevent themself from having to raise their own grandchildren.

Oh - and beating your children doesnt teach them respect: it teaches them fear.That's odd. I was hit by my mother as a child when I did something wrong, and I don't fear her in the least. As it happens, I have the greatest love and respect for her.

I know it's probably not a scientifically viable microcosm of society as a whole, but just about all of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances that I've had this conversation are in similar positions to the above.

In relation to the main question, I created this as an issue for NS a while back and had quite a number of TGs in response saying that they would licence parents. I personally agree with it considerably in theory, but agree that it would be very difficult to legislate. Mind you, they make you licence dogs and TVs in this country, and they often catch those that attempt to evade them, so perhaps it's not impossible. But it would probably be after the event, though.