Breeding licenses... what do you think?

[Atmos Duality]

No need.
We already have marriage to take the fun out of sex.

HIAYOOOOOOO!!

OT: Seriously. No.
Keep the government out of the bedroom. No. Matter. WHAT.

 

[Verlander]

Taking away someones choice isn't the problem here (fuck peoples choice), it's the fact that it would always come down to class discrimination, as the upper/middle classes will always on paper be perceived as the best potential for children, even though the opposite can be true. The upper classes rule politics, and so the masses would be oppressed.

Who would do the work then? There are better ways to legislate these things, not unlike the policy that China had, although there were many flaws in that

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

Oh yes, definitely. There are so many unfit parents out there. Unfortunately, controlling can be quite difficult. Unless you give everyone vasectomies when they are young and reverse it when they can be deemed to be fit parents.

Alternatively, raise children away from they're families in groups, like a boarding school.

 

[Caisu]

This actually got asked as a question in my GCSE biology class *years* ago! We came up with all sorts of things like putting contraceptives in the water, forcing persistent offenders to be sterilised, getting people to take tests in basic math and literacy as well as skills for caring for a child; the teacher said she feared the day any of us ended up in government, but that's not really answering the OP's question is it?

Yes. I would defiantly implement this. Our population growth is getting silly and we can't support it, neither can the planet. Children are born to parents who can't afford to care for them, with time, money or other resources, and it's not fair on the child to condemn it to a life as bad as it's parents (without a long hard upward struggle). As for peoples right to reproduce, then they should only be allowed one or two children, lots and lots of problems sorted right there...

 

[The_ModeRazor]

KILL MAIM BURN WWWWWAAAAAGHHH

Nahh, that doesn't sound very... ethical.
Not that it is possible to make it happen, anyway.

 

[Adam Galli]

I think it would be a good idea to have breeding licenses. Alot of the kids I went to high school with shouldn't breed. Period. Anyway, there are some instances when having children isn't in the best interest for a couple or the child. Personally I know a family that is living in poverty with many children and the mother just had another child. Not exactly the best situation to bring a child into.

 

[Antari]

Ya thats a great plan ... try to control human nature. Good luck with that ... let me know how it goes.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

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.

Yes, let's dump more kids in the foster system. That will end well.


I am 100% absolutely against this.

Anyone that is for this, frankly, is a moron.

Mandated birth control would cause riots. Pregnancies would result in either (a) forced abortions (which is unbelievably wrong and would cause more than riots) or (b) overloading an already crowded foster system.

Look at how many people with driver's licenses that drive like morons. Just getting a license will never show if a parent is capable of raising their child.

People without kids don't understand how having children changes you. Many people that probably wouldn't pass such a licensing test before having kids turn out to be wonderful parents. A lot of people that would pass this test with flying colors turn out to be awful.

It wouldn't be hard to add points to the test that would prevent minorities from having children (such as setting a minimum income). See how long it takes before that ends up in bloody revolution.

It gives the government an obscene amount of control over something they have no business being involved in. Do you want to give up control of your body to our government?

It would cost more money than we have, and would destroy what little is left of our economy.

Seriously, just no.

 

[Colour Scientist]

That's such a disturbing thought. I don't understand why you would want to implement that. Why would I want some superstate to dictate what I do and do not do with my ovaries?

What constitutes good parenting? I have yet to meet someone who has raised a child who has never made a mistake. Children don't turn out rotten just because of their parents, I've seen plenty of respectable, kind families turn out wasters time and time again. Society shapes them just as much as their home life and I wouldn't want to see the children that come out of that society.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

No shit.

These ideas always come up on this website.

No doubt its due to the medium of videogames attracting immature, "intellectuals" (see: socially distant).

Just think about the logistics of this. You want the government to monitor and control every single individual within their country? You expect people to roll over and have their bodies key function removed? It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, a civil rights nightmare and an arbitrary - unprovable load of nonsense.

The fact you would even suggest it makes me dislike you as a person.

This pretty much covers what I think. I did have a fairly long accompanyment to this statement expanding on what you said, however it was rather abrasive and would probably result in a lot of angry quotes and accusations of trollery that would be partly right, I kind of veered off into insulting people who would suggest this sort of thing as I find it that distasteful, although I believe there to be a certain element of truth in what I was going to say.

 

[Esgar]

This actually got asked as a question in my GCSE biology class *years* ago! We came up with all sorts of things like putting contraceptives in the water, forcing persistent offenders to be sterilised, getting people to take tests in basic math and literacy as well as skills for caring for a child; the teacher said she feared the day any of us ended up in government, but that's not really answering the OP's question is it?

Yes. I would defiantly implement this. Our population growth is getting silly and we can't support it, neither can the planet. Children are born to parents who can't afford to care for them, with time, money or other resources, and it's not fair on the child to condemn it to a life as bad as it's parents (without a long hard upward struggle). As for peoples right to reproduce, then they should only be allowed one or two children, lots and lots of problems sorted right there...

And then, what, exterminate the extras? (there will be extras)


I'm not willing to give the state full control over my ability to bring a child into this world, not to mention submit to guidelines that I get zero input on whether or not I'm qualified. While we're at it, they should decide who you marry, what school you go to, and what degree you get.

 

[Blue_vision]

No. It's a stupid idea and it always will be. You can't judge how much someone 'cares' based on a test or something like it.
So if I had the choice I'd be against it.

This, and the fact that you can't really deny someone the right to have children because they don't fit your view of a typical or "good" parent. And having children is a need deeply rooted in the human psyche. What level of emotional trauma will you be putting on people who desperately want a child but doesn't fit what you or society thinks would be a good parent? Does that mean that you'll then be fining/imprisoning people who accidentally got pregnant who didn't want to, or unwanted teen pregnancies (who still can't undergo an abortion in many parts of the world.)

Not to mention that you could always promise to take very good care of your child and then turn the other way 7 years down the road when money's running low or things are getting tough. Those kind of issues can only really be predicted or solved when they're happening. Not only is it completely immoral to legally prevent someone from having children (basically the purpose of human life,) it's just asinine and sidesteps any legitimate problems there may be with child rearing in our society today.

EDIT: I'm deeply disturbed by the number of people saying this is a good idea.

 

[FalloutJack]

In theory, a good plan. In practice, it wouldn't really work. You see, there are a number of science fictional references to ideas either exactly like this or close to it. They don't end too well, and I believe that was the author/producer's point in making the film.

Still, in the hypothetical sense, sure!

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I can see how it might be a good idea. Raising someone is a huge responsibility and an inept parent could really screw up a kids life. There's just one problem that always stops me from backing it:

What is a "good parent"?

What's a "good" parent and what's a "bad" one is not black and white. There are certain things that are obviously harmful, like abuse or neglect, but what's "good"? Should you go easy on the child and let them figure out what's right or wrong, or should you be strict and make sure they don't wander morally? Ask two different people and you'll get two different answers.

So until you have a definition of a "good parent" that everyone agrees on and that is capable of being tested for, a "breeding license" seems a bad idea waiting to get worse.

I'm all for eductating people on the basics of child-rearing and different theories on the subject, but preventing people from having a child because they "might" do something wrong (which is impossible to predict, 18 years is a long time and things can change very quickly) just seems so backasswards.

 

[Blitzwarp]

Forced sterilisation in certain elements of society. A 3 child limit. Better education, and getting rid of child benifits.

Lots of ways to cut down on the breeders of society. We need to get to a stage where having children is a revered thing. Where rasing a child in the right way is one of your biggest responsibilities, where having a child means raising another human being, and not just forgetting a condom.

My uncle and aunt have four children since my aunt is Irish Catholic and they believe in big families. The boys are all well-cared for and the oldest is starting at Cambridge this year. It's unfair to label everyone who have multiple children as "breeders". It's a choice. You know, a human right?

As for the topic, I'll reply with what I said less than a month ago:

No.

1. There's no practical way to enforce it. What are you going to do to parents who have a child but no license? Force the mother to have an abortion? Take the child away? Okay, great, so what do you do with the children you take away?

2. Parenting is an experience. You can read all of the books and watch all of the DVDs ever produced on the subject and still be a novice. Most of the things about parenthood you learn as you go along.

3. The test could never be objective. What if one of the questions demands (hypothetically) that parents teach children that homosexuality is evil, when the parents disagree? To answer honestly - no, they'd teach their kids to be open-minded - would lose them the right to reproduce. Would you like to be told how to raise your children?

4. For that matter, what would the grading system be? Pass at 50%? 65% Okay, which questions did they get wrong? The ones on feeding, clothing? The ones on education? Does that mean a parent who got 100% is somehow 'better' than a parent who only got 70%?

5. If the test is a standard test, everybody is going to know what the correct answers are. There would even be books on the subject. Does that make you a good parent, or good at taking tests? For example, I aced my GCSE German exam, but I can't actually speak a word of the language and wasn't interested in ever doing so.

6. What about couples who want to adopt? Should there be different tests for adopting a young child, a teenager?

7. There's a horrific situation in China at the moment with their "one child only" policy - thousands of female children being killed in favour of having a male child instead, as males are considered to be worth more under Chinese law. It's not the same as a 'breeding license', but it is evidence that a license used to restrict childbirths - which sounds like such a sensible idea on paper - has gone horribly, horribly wrong.