Breeding licenses... what do you think?

[spartan231490]

A friend of mine and I had this discussion recently. I suggested in casual conversation that breeding licenses should be imposed on people. My friend argued that doing that would take away a persons right to choose, in part I agree, and I totally understand where they are coming from. However, I made the following point:

In almost everything important in your life, you have to obtain some kind of permission to do it. If you want to drive, you have to get a driving license. If you want to vote, you have to enrol (or in some cases, you are made to enrol and then get fined if you don't vote). If you want to drink and/or smoke, you have to be of an appropriate age in your country. If you want to travel to another country, you have to get a passport. And yet the *MOST* important thing you could do in your life, bringing a tiny, vulnerable human being into this world, is something anyone is allowed to do regardless of whether they are capable of caring for that child or not. Instead we wait until the parent has proved they are NOT capable of caring for the child before taking it away and in most cases after the child has been traumatized/abused/disabled/etc.

So what do you think, Escapists? Should we have to prove we would be fit parents before we bring a child into the world? Or not?

P.S. This is essentially a hypothetical question. It's not really something you can police, but if it were possible, would you support it?

You could easily police it. Some rare cases might slip through the cracks, but a very high percentage of the people who have children do so at a hospital. If they didn't have a licence, instead of sending the child home with them automatically, contact social services.
I think it should be done. I've seen way too many cases where people completely incapable or even unwilling to care for a child have had one anyway. Usually through their own stupidity.
EDIT: As for restricting rights, you wouldn't be doing so if the license was easily obtainable, within a 7-8 month period, you would just be providing an easy method for adoption, and also protecting the child's right not to be abused or neglected ect.

 

[Lilani]

simple the parents get a kid and regulary get checked up by the government if one of the parents does something wrong (or if the kid commits allot of crimes due to a bad home situation) the license will be revoked and the offending parnet will be sterilized it sounds extreme but its the only way to enforce a law of such kind
PS:
alternatively forced parenting lessons can also be used as punishment on minor offences

You...you actually think something like that would work? I sort of feel bad for arguing with you--you still have a lot of growing up to do, kid.

Let me put it this way. A few years ago when the government wanted wiretaps without warrants to keep track of suspected terrorists, people lost their minds. They could not and would not tolerate the government having the freedom to freely peek in on their private conversations.

And you haven't even mentioned "accidental" pregnancies. What happens if a couple gets pregnant by accident, or so they claim? Do kids get taken away and taken care of by the government if those parents prove unfit? That will just lead to nobody using protection. If they happen to get pregnant, they flunk the test and voila! No more baby, and no more responsibility. Rinse and repeat, with no worries of responsibility.

None of what you said would ever work. I could go on and on as to why, but it's obvious you are very young and still have a lot to learn about the world, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Jfswift]

Fortress 2 anyone? Anyway I actually don't think it's a bad idea - also and off topic but pet licenses should be required too. Some people are too irresponsible to have children.

 

[spartan231490]

I have two points to add:

1.) The parental instinct can lie latent in some people. It won't be until faced with the responsibility that they'll really prove they are capable.

2.) It won't stop anything. Making it that you have to have a license for children will not stop people from having sex and getting impregnated. If you impose a mandatory contraceptive drug law, then you'll likely have a massive revolt on your hands.

1) this isn't about desire or responsibility, this is about ability, and maybe about violent tendencies towards children. You can test that. Not whether they will be a good parent, but you can catch some of the really bad (I.E. abusive, mentally/physically incapable, grossly negligent) parents.
2) You don't stop them from having the child, you stop them from keeping it. There are a great many couples all over the world who want children and can't have them.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

I believe it is a bad idea for one reason: No matter how seemingly reasonable the restriction you want may be, once you have established the precedent that breeding is a privilege granted by the state and not a right as a human being, you open up the process to be governmentally controlled. Your restrictions might be perfectly sane, but eventually the State of Texas will decide that there needs to be tighter controls, and then Alabama will follow suit and take it just a little bit further, then Virginia will require more steps because too many people seem to be slipping through even through they're not "qualified" and I'm sure you can see where this is going... Even worse, think about how racists might be able to abuse the system, particularly if they ever get to write the rules. If they, for instance, require an I.Q. test to be administered, but the test is only given in the English language, it would artificially lower the scores of anyone who does not have a full grasp of English and thus prevent "those races" from getting to breed.

The suggestion you make may sound reasonable to you, but it opens the door to an entire network of bad consequences and unfortunate implications.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

It isn't a question of how much somebody cares about the itty-bitty person but how able said person is at raising the child. Homer Simpson is a great example: He loves his kids in his own way but he's a real bad father (especially in season 6 which gave us the line, "your half-assed over parenting is more scary than your half-assed under-parenting")

I would be in favor of some sort of guidelines when it comes to childbirth. I'm not talking about a dictatorial, 'if you have more than one baby, we will kill the additional ones' or, 'if you fail the test, we take your babies away forever'. I am thinking more along the lines of strongly discouraging people to litter the world with a family similar to John & Kate + 8. Obviously you will have multiple births (twins, triplettes etc) but people spitting out child-after-child should be discouraged.

This is a question similar to the one about Presidential candidates passing a competency test. I don't see the big deal in such things and think such things could help. As was mentioned above, just about everything else requires some sort of test or has some set of guidelines. I think the main thing standing in the way of birth-regulation is the fact that it is a pretty radical idea in the west. In the future we may adopt some set of regulations or guidelines where birth is concerned but now may not be that time.

Personally I don't want kids and I know I wouldn't be the best parent. I'm probably the only guy here who is planning on a vasectomy within the next 2 years. That may be a bit much though...sorry...

 

[SkyeNeko]

parents should be given something like a test baby first to see how things go. it shouldnt be a pass fail kind of test, more of a if the baby get set on fire or starves or something you dont get one.

 

[Wintermoot]

simple the parents get a kid and regulary get checked up by the government if one of the parents does something wrong (or if the kid commits allot of crimes due to a bad home situation) the license will be revoked and the offending parnet will be sterilized it sounds extreme but its the only way to enforce a law of such kind
PS:
alternatively forced parenting lessons can also be used as punishment on minor offences

You...you actually think something like that would work? I sort of feel bad for arguing with you--you still have a lot of growing up to do, kid.

Let me put it this way. A few years ago when the government wanted wiretaps without warrants to keep track of suspected terrorists, people lost their minds. They could not and would not tolerate the government having the freedom to freely peek in on their private conversations.

And you haven't even mentioned "accidental" pregnancies. What happens if a couple gets pregnant by accident, or so they claim? Do kids get taken away and taken care of by the government if those parents prove unfit? That will just lead to nobody using protection. If they happen to get pregnant, they flunk the test and voila! No more baby, and no more responsibility. Rinse and repeat, with no worries of responsibility.

None of what you said would ever work. I could go on and on as to why, but it's obvious you are very young and still have a lot to learn about the world, so I'll just leave it at that.

then again its a very unmoral law and very hard to enforce (even the Chinese One Child Policy is hard to maintain in places like the country side)

 

[loc978]

Yes and no.
In my totalitarian society, there would be no controls until after the fact. Any pregnancy that happens in a situation where there is no one of a pre-determined level of financial stability willing to take care of the child would be terminated. Any person proven to have caused three such pregnancies would be surgically sterilized.

 

[Michelle Weiss]

im against it

but parenting classes should be REQUIRED in high school

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

So what do you think, Escapists? Should we have to prove we would be fit parents before we bring a child into the world? Or not?

P.S. This is essentially a hypothetical question. It's not really something you can police, but if it were possible, would you support it?

Yes.

Personally, I think that at 16, everyone should recieve a contraceptive implant that prevents pregnancy or impregnation. That way people can have all the sex they want, but no one will get pregnant.

Then, you apply for a "breeding license" to get the implants tempoarily turned off, long enough for the person or people involved to produce a child. Once that occurs, the implants get turned back on - one would need to apply for a second license for an additonal child and so-forth.

Also, if anyone can point out the novel series this idea came from, you get a virtual cookie.

 

[sleeky01]

So what do you think, Escapists? Should we have to prove we would be fit parents before we bring a child into the world? Or not?

*sigh*

Every time I walk into my local Wal-Mart I ask myself the same question. It might be repugnant, but humanity has had to do alot of repugnant things for "the greater good" :/

 

[Bloodstain]

Have fun trying to define "good parenting". Opinions are different. There are means of parenting I condemn to no end, but others use them. And I don't have the right to insist that my view is "right" and theirs is "wrong".

Besides...if you had to be responsible and reasonable in order to breed, then humanity would soon die out.

 

[Daverson]

It's a brilliant idea, one that should be implemented asap.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that should happen, yet they won't happen. This won't happen because there are too many people who believe one (or both) of the following:
1. Their right to "maek babby" trumps the child's right to a decent life
2. Abortion is evil and must be stopped (there will be accidents. Abortion would need to be commonplace with this sort of legislation)
And that's why it's not going to happen.

 

[sleeky01]

So what do you think, Escapists? Should we have to prove we would be fit parents before we bring a child into the world? Or not?

P.S. This is essentially a hypothetical question. It's not really something you can police, but if it were possible, would you support it?

Yes.

Personally, I think that at 16, everyone should recieve a contraceptive implant that prevents pregnancy or impregnation. That way people can have all the sex they want, but no one will get pregnant.

Then, you apply for a "breeding license" to get the implants tempoarily turned off, long enough for the person or people involved to produce a child. Once that occurs, the implants get turned back on - one would need to apply for a second license for an additonal child and so-forth.

Also, if anyone can point out the novel series this idea came from, you get a virtual cookie.

Dammit I remember reading this but I can't think of the title. However I didn't think it was a series.

Society was controlled by a single computer..... some landmasses like Madagascar were removed from maps to hide "refuges"..... All previous attempt to destroy "The Computer" failed because they always attacked a mock-up, but the main hero of the story knew where the real computer was.... Dammit I read it I just can't remember the name of it. Published in the early 80's.

Do I at least get to lick the bowl when you bake those cookies?

 

[Great North]

...
And yet the *MOST* important thing you could do in your life, bringing a tiny, vulnerable human being into this world, is something anyone is allowed to do regardless of whether they are capable of caring for that child or not. Instead we wait until the parent has proved they are NOT capable of caring for the child before taking it away and in most cases after the child has been traumatized/abused/disabled/etc.
...

Well, I would say it is the most important. But having children is a basic human RIGHT. It would be like having to fill out a form and get an ID card so that you can use a BATHROOM.

Is it unfortunate that neglect and abuse happen? Yes. Can we do more to prevent it from happening? Yes, and we probably should. Should we monitor parents that have a have a history? Well yes. But I think people have the right to reproduce. Even the laws in China don't say you CAN'T have kids, it just regulates the number.

(That being said, it downright pisses me off when I see people having eight, ten, twelve kids, just because they WANT to. In many cases its irresponsible for the children, and not great for the world as a whole. We are already having population problems in areas, we don't need you working HARDER to make things worse. Reminds me a bit of Monique and the Mango Rains, if you've heard of and/or read it.)

 

[Lizmichi]

I'd love for something like this to happen but sadly it takes away choice. I understand taking tests for things like driving and such but people can lie on tests about how to raise kids and over time people change. The system that we have no, while imperfect, is the best we have.

 

[Sonicron]

Looking at what apparently passes for a regular kid nowadays, I'll opt for the Spider Jerusalem approach:

"One day I'm going to throw a bomb on this city. A contraceptive bomb."

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Dammit I remember reading this but I can't think of the title. However I didn't think it was a series.

Society was controlled by a single computer..... some landmasses like Madagascar were removed from maps to hide "refuges"..... All previous attempt to destroy "The Computer" failed because they always attacked a mock-up, but the main hero of the story knew where the real computer was.... Dammit I read it I just can't remember the name of it. Published in the early 80's.

Do I at least get to lick the bowl when you bake those cookies?

**blink**

Huh. No, not the one I was thinking of. This one involves a human colonized world with population issues. Getting a first child license isn't hard, but 2 or more is very difficult - you have to do community or military service to earn the right.

This is also a world where everyone wears earrings, with different styles indicating your orientation, relationship status, and if you are interested in being approached. It's actually a pretty neat system.