NationStates Jolt Archive

Indeed, if one wants to drive a car legally, one needs to apply for a driver´s license. If one wants to practice certain professions (lawyer, phisician, engineer) one has to get a college degree and later apply with professional associations. So, why, when it comes to spawning a human being, something far more important than any other human endeavour, one just needs sexual organs in working-order?

Because that would lead to not only red tape, but possible horrible governmental abuse. Also, what kind of genetic disorder do you need to be prevented to breed? I have mild haemophilia A, and I don't want to be told I can't have kids.

Because that would lead to not only red tape, but possible horrible governmental abuse. Also, what kind of genetic disorder do you need to be prevented to breed? I have mild haemophilia A, and I don't want to be told I can't have kids.
Actually, i didn´t mean such disorders...i was much more interested in the fact that many parents seem overly immature and not prepared to the task of parenting...or they arent prepared to provide a stable and nurturing environment to their kids...but i suppode with could bring severe genetic disorders into the debate,too.

Because it would be not only unenforceable within reason but subject to massive abuse

While I think parents should be checked up on attempting to stop unlicensed pregnancies would be horrid

Indeed, if one wants to drive a car legally, one needs to apply for a driver´s license. If one wants to practice certain professions (lawyer, phisician, engineer) one has to get a college degree and later apply with professional associations. So, why, when it comes to spawning a human being, something far more important than any other human endeavour, one just needs sexual organs in working-order?

Society and mankind has gotten this far without selective breeding.which is essentially what this is,only those who prove they are capable of being parents are given a license(i assume).thus only those who fit certain criteria will be allowed raise their children,or even have children

In order to enforce such parental licenses, the government would have to open up new offices, hire new people, etc. That would either meen a decrease in spending in education/healthcare/law enforcement, or tax increase.

Either way, it just doesn't work out economically, and besides, who the hell wants to be told "The government says you need a license to breed!"

We've already been over this issue, and the same objections still apply. It's unenforceable - what are you going to do, force people to have abortions if they aren't licensed? That will go over so well..... And who sets the criteria for the license? And what massive, expensive bureacracy will administer the tests and enforce the licenses?

Waste all the time you want dreaming about it, but it's not going to happen, ever.

:rolleyes:

In order to enforce such parental licenses, the government would have to open up new offices, hire new people, etc. That would either meen a decrease in spending in education/healthcare/law enforcement, or tax increase.

Either way, it just doesn't work out economically, and besides, who the hell wants to be told "The government says you need a license to breed!"
well, then how come uou cant bitch when the state tells you that you need to apply to get a drivers license?

well, then how come uou cant bitch when the state tells you that you need to apply to get a drivers license? For the reasons you cited: tax is less important than children.

We've already been over this issue, and the same objections still apply. It's unenforceable - what are you going to do, force people to have abortions if they aren't licensed? That will go over so well..... And who sets the criteria for the license? And what massive, expensive bureacracy will administer the tests and enforce the licenses?

Waste all the time you want dreaming about it, but it's not going to happen, ever.

:rolleyes:
One thing we agree on

Because nearly everyone would fail.

And do you honestly believe people wouldn't just do it anyway? What would you do with the resulting hundreds of illegal kids?

Because that would lead to not only red tape, but possible horrible governmental abuse. Also, what kind of genetic disorder do you need to be prevented to breed? I have mild haemophilia A, and I don't want to be told I can't have kids.
I support competency licenses for parenting.

I support competency licenses for parenting. How does one measure competence? Would you hand them a little sheet with questions like "are you good at disciplining children"?

It's that genereal "the government should stay outta my pants rule"

I support competency licenses for parenting.

Do you have kids?

My biggest epiphany as a new parent was that my parents(all knowing as I was growing up) were just as clueless about many situations as I am now.

I think I turned out fairly well.

Liscensing parents is a load of crap.

Social workers need jobs too.

Do you have kids?

My biggest epiphany as a new parent was that my parents(all knowing as I was growing up) were just as clueless about many situations as I am now.

I think I turned out fairly well.
I don't think I should have to define competence.

I don't think I should have to define competence.

Yes you should.

What forms of discipline are considered "Competant"?
Types of education?
Level of education?
Political/religious/social beliefs, etc.

These are all subjective areas that change what many people determine as "competant" parents.


Before I became a parent, I was completely ignorant of basic childcare. W/I a week, I could do it (and did) in my sleep. Would I have been denied a "license"?

Competence is irrelevant to type, it is quality.

That sounds like a good idea. People with genetic disease and people who will just have children to get more money from welfare shouldn't have children. It may infringe on your rights, but having a child in the full knowledge that somewhere down the line one of your descendants will contract diabetes and have to live a life of injections and the risk of an early death is akin to grievous bodily damage and preventing someone from committing crime is not infringing on their rights.

I'm not sure about child support though. You can't really tell whether someone had a child because they wanted to raise a family or because they just wanted more cash from the government and you can't really take away child support from people who genuinely want to raise a family.

A lie detector test may work. Even though there are ways around a lie detector test, stupid people tend to want children purely for the money and stupid people usually do not have the emotional control and mental ability to work around a lie detector test.

Another idea is simply to give the person baby tokens or even just the nappies and baby foods they need.

Thoughts?

That sounds like a good idea. People with genetic disease and people who will just have children to get more money from welfare shouldn't have children. It may infringe on your rights, but having a child in the full knowledge that somewhere down the line one of your descendants will contract diabetes and have to live a life of injections and the risk of an early death is akin to grievous bodily damage and preventing someone from committing crime is not infringing on their rights.

I'm not sure about child support though. You can't really tell whether someone had a child because they wanted to raise a family or because they just wanted more cash from the government and you can't really take away child support from people who genuinely want to raise a family.

A lie detector test may work. Even though there are ways around a lie detector test, stupid people tend to want children purely for the money and stupid people usually do not have the emotional control and mental ability to work around a lie detector test.

Another idea is simply to give the person baby tokens or even just the nappies and baby foods they need.

Thoughts? Stupid people… what kind of stupid? We as humans tend to think of people with differing opinions as stupid automatically. Also, what level of genetic disease? Remember that some incredibly intelligent people have diseases.

well, then how come uou cant bitch when the state tells you that you need to apply to get a drivers license?
Government owns the roads, so in order to drive on the government's roads you need a license. Perhaps it should be legal to drive on non-public roads without a license, but that's a different story.

Plus, maternity costs a lot as it is. Why add to it by making some mother pay to get liscensed to do it.

The title of this thread speaks volumes for the need of the measure in question.

Anyway. The problem, from what I've seen, isn't simply that undesireable specimens are reproducing; the problem is that they have *hordes* of screaming children. One or two kids is fine, but the whole "welfare family having five extra children to get a bigger monthly beer cheque" thing is not. (Yes, yes, horrible stereotyping. But it happens).

So, if any solution is to be adopted, I think it should be the one proposed in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy to combat overpopulation: declare that every person in the [US/North America/world] has the right to 0.75 children. A couple, therefore - married, common-law, or otherwise - would therefore get 1.5 children between them. They can have the one kid, no questions asked... and they can then decide what to do with the 0.5 child credit remaining to them. If money is tight, they can sell their credit to another family; if having two children is important to them, they can buy another 0.5 credit and thus earn the right to a second child.

It wouldn't be terribly difficult to enforce, not on any meaningful level at least. People are already registered at birth (hence Social Insurance/Social Security numbers); just add another flag on the file for child credits, and set up a system to monitor credit transfers.

Of course, I'm just bitter because I don't like children at all.

The title of this thread speaks volumes for the need of the measure in question.

Anyway. The problem, from what I've seen, isn't simply that undesireable specimens are reproducing; the problem is that they have *hordes* of screaming children. One or two kids is fine, but the whole "welfare family having five extra children to get a bigger monthly beer cheque" thing is not. (Yes, yes, horrible stereotyping. But it happens).

So, if any solution is to be adopted, I think it should be the one proposed in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy to combat overpopulation: declare that every person in the [US/North America/world] has the right to 0.75 children. A couple, therefore - married, common-law, or otherwise - would therefore get 1.5 children between them. They can have the one kid, no questions asked... and they can then decide what to do with the 0.5 child credit remaining to them. If money is tight, they can sell their credit to another family; if having two children is important to them, they can buy another 0.5 credit and thus earn the right to a second child.

It wouldn't be terribly difficult to enforce, not on any meaningful level at least. People are already registered at birth (hence Social Insurance/Social Security numbers); just add another flag on the file for child credits, and set up a system to monitor credit transfers.

Of course, I'm just bitter because I don't like children at all.
Stay outta my pants.

Actually, i didn´t mean such disorders...i was much more interested in the fact that many parents seem overly immature and not prepared to the task of parenting...or they arent prepared to provide a stable and nurturing environment to their kids...but i suppode with could bring severe genetic disorders into the debate,too.
Then why not teach your kids how to be good paretnts? this isn't rocket science, stop trying to shrug off your responsabilities and dump them on big brother.

The funny thing is, in a society with welfare, "Stay outta my pants." is always followed by, "Then stay out of my wallet."

Seriously, when I'm potentially paying for someone else's kids, you'd think I'd have a say in how many they can have. Just like while I'm paying for someone else's healthcare, you'd think I could forbid them from smoking.

The funny thing is, in a society with welfare, "Stay outta my pants." is always followed by, "Then stay out of my wallet."

Seriously, when I'm potentially paying for someone else's kids, you'd think I'd have a say in how many they can have. Just like while I'm paying for someone else's healthcare, you'd think I could forbid them from smoking. Child support isn't much atm, and smoking is paid back in the vast taxes they pay when they buy tobacco.

Child support isn't much atm
We don't pay people to have children? We do in the US . . .
smoking is paid back in the vast taxes they pay when they buy tobacco.
Prove it. Prove that a smoker who pays that extra tax on cigarettes always breaks even when they have thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical expenses.

If the smoker pays more in his lifetime than his medical costs necesitate, he's being taken advantage of. If he pays less, I'm being taken advantage of. So unless you can prove that every smoker pays exactly the amount needed in their lifetime for associated costs, I'm fairly certain the amounts aren't equal.

We don't pay people to have children? We do in the US . . .

Prove it. Prove that a smoker who pays that extra tax on cigarettes always breaks even when they have thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical expenses.

If the smoker pays more in his lifetime than his medical costs necesitate, he's being taken advantage of. If he pays less, I'm being taken advantage of. So unless you can prove that every smoker pays exactly the amount needed in their lifetime for associated costs, I'm fairly certain the amounts aren't equal. I don't think they pay the exact amount… I'm pretty sure they pay far more than their medical costs, and it's no one else's fault to be honest… also I didn't say there was no child support, just that it isn't much.

Parenting Licenses is an excellent idea, if used correctly. It should be very basic and easy, just to weed out the total idiots.

Question 1: Your child steals a piece of candy. What do you do?

A. Shoot him or her

B. Steal more Candy with him.

C. Give him or her Oral.

D. None of the Above

If someone still haves kids, then just take it from them, and put them in adoption. A parenting license is also needed to adopt.

Parenting Licenses is an excellent idea, if used correctly. It should be very basic and easy, just to weed out the total idiots.

Question 1: Your child steals a piece of candy. What do you do?

A. Shoot him or her

B. Steal more Candy with him.

C. Give him or her Oral.

D. None of the Above

If someone still haves kids, then just take it from them, and put them in adoption. A parenting license is also needed to adopt.

A then C.














:eek:

I stole candy once, 1 jelly bean and my mom shouted at me and ever since I've had this innate fear of stealing. :(


I don't see what the problem is with giving baby tokens to parents instead of money. If they don't spend it on things the baby needs, what will they spend it on? As for laws concerning who should and who shouldn't have children, I don't see why someone would want their child to have diabetes so it'd be like a regulation rather than a law and it's not as if the regulation would only allow blonde blue eyed whites to have children. It wouldn't even be like the swedish who sterilized people against their will for being short sighted. If you had diabetes I'm sure you would prefer half or all of your genes to come from people without diabetes.

That sounds like a good idea. People with genetic disease and people who will just have children to get more money from welfare shouldn't have children.
No that doesn't sound like a good idea. This idea was proposed and executed in the Third Reich. People with genetic diseases or who had a below average IQ or belonged to a group which was deemed a social parasite (e.g. gypsies) were forcefully sterilised (or just killed ...).

Seriously, when I'm potentially paying for someone else's kids, you'd think I'd have a say in how many they can have. Just like while I'm paying for someone else's healthcare, you'd think I could forbid them from smoking.
I don't know about the US, but Europe is getting seriously underpopulated (not that it seems that way at the moment). We rely on kids to pay our pensions in the future, so money spent on kids by the government is money well spent.

If you could pick and choose which people profit from your tax dollar / insurance contribution a lot of people would suddenly be left out in the rain. After all why should I support people who cost a lot in medical bills, because they suffer from something that I'm highly unlikely to get? Why should I support state run sleeping places for homeless people - after all I have to pay rent myself?

But isn't the whole point of a state that it's a mutually supportive group for its citizens? The well off support the not so well off, the healthy make medical care possible for the poor with their contribution to health insurance. If you don't believe in that you don't need a state, but you won't have anyone support you, when you fall on hard times. You also have no county to be proud of (which seems important for a lot of people).

Indeed, if one wants to drive a car legally, one needs to apply for a driver´s license. If one wants to practice certain professions (lawyer, phisician, engineer) one has to get a college degree and later apply with professional associations. So, why, when it comes to spawning a human being, something far more important than any other human endeavour, one just needs sexual organs in working-order?


I can see where your coming from :) I definitly think that certain ppl should not be allowed to be parents, regardless of their means. A license would be so susceptible to abuse so it probably won't be the best idea. I think however mandatory parenting courses should be introduced. This isn't going to go down well and its only my opinion based on what I have directly observed so please don't freak out- but I do think that if it is beyond your means you should certainly have kids but having 5-7 kids when your on social welfare isn't fair on the kids and should be curtailed. I know and have seen so many families that can't afford basic nessecities even with social welfare, their kids don't have a chance.

I think however mandatory parenting courses should be introduced.
I agree on this point, I think they are a good idea and prepare you a little for what's to come. My wife and I took such a course. It was well worth it, even though the midwives in charge of the class were a bit too "earth mothery" for my taste. But I learnt a lot (including using cloth and disposable nappies) and at least heard opinions on important subject (like inoculation) that helped me make up my mind (in this case disregard what they said).

Parenting Licenses is an excellent idea, if used correctly. It should be very basic and easy, just to weed out the total idiots.

Question 1: Your child steals a piece of candy. What do you do?

A. Shoot him or her

B. Steal more Candy with him.

C. Give him or her Oral.

D. None of the Above

If someone still haves kids, then just take it from them, and put them in adoption. A parenting license is also needed to adopt. However, such an arrangement would be possibly expensive. What are you going to do, sterilise everyone and then unsterilise them when they've passed the test? That could require a large bureaucracy to work, and a fair amount of funding.

Do I have to spell it out for you?

D I S E A S E

A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
Obsolete. Lack of ease; trouble.

And no, I don't play political word games, this is my definition of disease.

"A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms."

In this case caused by genetic defect and now that we have completed the human genome project we can identify genetic defects, such as diabetes, (which I must have mentionned 10 times by now, but is somehow translated into you thinking I want to persecute gypsies) and ensure people's children do not have the disease.

Being a gypsy isn't a disease, some unsavoury characters in the 20th century may have thought so, but I do not, here it is again

D I S E A S E
"A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms."

Diabetes isn't a disease and it doesn't make you a disease either, the fact that you think disease means gypsies means that you are probably the nazi here, once more

D I S E A S E
"A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms."

I've made it absolutely clear what my intentions are, parents can get free mouth swabs to see whether they have any recessive genes that might cause their CHILDREN to spend the rest of their LIVES with a dehabilitating genetically passed DISEASE. I WANT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM HAVING DEHABILITATING DISEASES. I do not want to persecute gypsies, in any way shape or form.


jeezz... :headbang:

Most people do not have genetic disease anyway so most people would just have the swab, wait 2 weeks, get the letter stating they do not have any genetic disease and their children will not have to grow up with diabetes, cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia and get down to business. I don't see how this would turn everyone into a nazi state.