Poll: should you need a license to be a parent
- Thread starter buddee1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Parents do have parenting classes and they're called post natal classes. While I agree that some people need to be better educated on parenting you should never try to implement a license for a biological thing. How do you suggest that we go about this? Do we force those without this license to take treatment that causes temporary infertility as if you are then you are going against a human right so simple that it's on the same level of right to live.
If you don't think this method should be done and it should still be implemented what happens if someone becomes accidentally pregnant? Do you force an abortion, do you take the baby away as both of these are proven to be psychologically damaging for both the mother and the child. According to John Bowlby's 44 thieves study one of the reasons that people lead to delinquency and affectionless psychopathy is caused by a lack of a continuous, consistent attachment figure in the first two years of life (which is stereotypically the mothers job). If you take the child away and put it into care how is the child going to get this?
For me the most important thing is how do you decide who is worthy of becoming a parent? Do you decide by there license appliers personal wealth, do you decide by age (as being older doesn't necessarily mean wiser or better parenting skills.) A license, IMO, is giving the state too much power as if they wanted too they could easily have it so that only the 'elite' in society is allowed to have offspring.
If you don't think this method should be done and it should still be implemented what happens if someone becomes accidentally pregnant? Do you force an abortion, do you take the baby away as both of these are proven to be psychologically damaging for both the mother and the child. According to John Bowlby's 44 thieves study one of the reasons that people lead to delinquency and affectionless psychopathy is caused by a lack of a continuous, consistent attachment figure in the first two years of life (which is stereotypically the mothers job). If you take the child away and put it into care how is the child going to get this?
For me the most important thing is how do you decide who is worthy of becoming a parent? Do you decide by there license appliers personal wealth, do you decide by age (as being older doesn't necessarily mean wiser or better parenting skills.) A license, IMO, is giving the state too much power as if they wanted too they could easily have it so that only the 'elite' in society is allowed to have offspring.
I died a bit inside when I saw that over half of the pollvoters voted "yes".
Seriously this is such a basic freedom thing that I'm almost upset you have to make a thread even considering it and even more that so many seem to think its a good idea I mean seriously. Who are YOU to say that THEY cannot have a child? How are you supposed to be able to determen who is going to get the license?
How do you know that who ever got the power to give people these licenses doesn't misuse that and refuse to give licenses to people due to their political ideals, their background, and so and so on.
Something like this goes directly against human rights.
Seriously this is such a basic freedom thing that I'm almost upset you have to make a thread even considering it and even more that so many seem to think its a good idea I mean seriously. Who are YOU to say that THEY cannot have a child? How are you supposed to be able to determen who is going to get the license?
How do you know that who ever got the power to give people these licenses doesn't misuse that and refuse to give licenses to people due to their political ideals, their background, and so and so on.
Something like this goes directly against human rights.
As a memeber of VHEM I must say the idea of weeding out the irresponcable would be a very good idea. It is clear that very few people are actually capable of sitting down and planning out everything that a child would need to prosper in this world. Hell, most of us are not even sure what we will do to make ourselves prosper let alone a child. A system in place to regulate conception would limit child birth to people suitable and capable of supporting a child.
Yet I voted no.
Why? Logistics. I doubt it would be possible for us to implement a system that would allow us to monitor, let alone regulate, conception on a massive scale. All it takes is an act of ejaculation to have a child it and ejaculating is fun! This is part of the problem facing the world today with over population. How do we put in place a system that could achieve this effect with the insurance that it will both efficient and be cheap enough to implement?
I ask for these two factors, at least, for common sense. If it isn't effective then why the hell should we bother to start with, after all if it doesn't fix the problem then why try it? And if it is going to further throw the country even faster towards bankruptcy, and the massive problems that will cause, to achieve such a minor 'victory' then again why bother?
Then there is the no way factor, the fact people will not stand for the procedures that could possibly work. Chemical castrating, for example, the general population might be able to regulate child births. Like to see how long you manage to stay in office, or alive, after trying to push that one onto the people. Every other system has the same flaw, it won't be accepted by the masses as it involves forcing people not to have sex or a surgical procedure. Both something people will not stand for.
And without a system to regulate, a hollow bit of law isn't going to help the real problem facing children born unwanted into homes that can not care for them.
Yet I voted no.
Why? Logistics. I doubt it would be possible for us to implement a system that would allow us to monitor, let alone regulate, conception on a massive scale. All it takes is an act of ejaculation to have a child it and ejaculating is fun! This is part of the problem facing the world today with over population. How do we put in place a system that could achieve this effect with the insurance that it will both efficient and be cheap enough to implement?
I ask for these two factors, at least, for common sense. If it isn't effective then why the hell should we bother to start with, after all if it doesn't fix the problem then why try it? And if it is going to further throw the country even faster towards bankruptcy, and the massive problems that will cause, to achieve such a minor 'victory' then again why bother?
Then there is the no way factor, the fact people will not stand for the procedures that could possibly work. Chemical castrating, for example, the general population might be able to regulate child births. Like to see how long you manage to stay in office, or alive, after trying to push that one onto the people. Every other system has the same flaw, it won't be accepted by the masses as it involves forcing people not to have sex or a surgical procedure. Both something people will not stand for.
And without a system to regulate, a hollow bit of law isn't going to help the real problem facing children born unwanted into homes that can not care for them.
Sounds like the start of a Logan's Run movie. In the exciting finale, the main hero and heroine break into the research area of EvilLabs Inc. and give themselves the antidote, then leap off a conveniently-placed waterfall and escape into the wilds to rebuild society.Bourne said:
I also died a little inside. Don't feel bad. It just means there's less of you to love.Warwolt said:
Apparently over half of the people here live in perfect societies where intrusive legislation is never misused and political corruption does not exist.
Of course they should, why let someone ruins a child's life because there an idoit?
I guess you can't ban people getting pregnant but you could try regulate how the child is raised.
The only problem with that is the law is so constricting these days you can't know whether anything you are doing is a mistake in the eyes of the regulators or not.
I guess you can't ban people getting pregnant but you could try regulate how the child is raised.
The only problem with that is the law is so constricting these days you can't know whether anything you are doing is a mistake in the eyes of the regulators or not.
As only a few people have said, it's not so much the idea of chemically stopping procreation until they pass a test, but the idea of allowing ANYONE to be in charge of judging people worthy or not.
Pretty much any large organisation has it's fair share of unbelievable fuckwits and died in the wool arseholes, and you just know the power would be abused.
However, I did very much like the idea of
Pretty much any large organisation has it's fair share of unbelievable fuckwits and died in the wool arseholes, and you just know the power would be abused.
However, I did very much like the idea of
boholikeu said:
I voted yes, and would vote Hell Yes if it were available, perhaps just as children are required to get certain shots, when you get to lets just say 6th grade you receive a birth control shot if you will, one that is reversible when you pass your test. God next to reducing the worlds population roughly 80% this probably be second best thing.
simple enough if you have a baby that's not "licensed" put it up for adoption if you ***** and moan, well you brokeded the laws didn't you so shut up
Do apoligize for any temper tantrums over "rights" but 90% of the worlds population are completely useless shells and A little intellectual "cleansing" is in order.
simple enough if you have a baby that's not "licensed" put it up for adoption if you ***** and moan, well you brokeded the laws didn't you so shut up
Do apoligize for any temper tantrums over "rights" but 90% of the worlds population are completely useless shells and A little intellectual "cleansing" is in order.
Usually I'd say "No" because it's a restriction of human rights and suchlike, but I've found myself seriously considering the idea lately. There are some people who are blatantly unfit to be parents, and even a simple psychological test would be able to root out those who are genuinely incapable of raising a child. I mean, you have to take a driving test before you can use a car, so why shouldn't you take a test before becoming responsible for someone's life? That's probably a pretty naive argument, but after seeing the state of some families around town, it's starting to seem more and more valid.
Many of the arguments against this do make a lot of sense.
So going off of that, what about instead of doing this on a massive scale at least lower it down to the criminal division of society? I can think of several flaws with the plan already but for example Timmy goes to jail for arson, well Timmy shouldn't be allowed to have kids through some sort of vaccine for a set amount of years depending on offense in which he must take test and if he succeeds well then Timmy can have Tommy.
That way, the well-minded parts of society *snigger* will have their chance to breed like brain-dead rabbits, but at least we can control the part of society most likely to produce bad parenting. Be a much less massive undertaking then on doing it to entire society even fit it into our stellar and perfect Jailing system (done with sarcasm).
Still completely devoted to every person having to do it at a certain age, but realistically I probably won't be around if or when society got its head out of its ass enough to implement some sort of collective insurance policy against stupidity. As a result might as well as meet halfway
So going off of that, what about instead of doing this on a massive scale at least lower it down to the criminal division of society? I can think of several flaws with the plan already but for example Timmy goes to jail for arson, well Timmy shouldn't be allowed to have kids through some sort of vaccine for a set amount of years depending on offense in which he must take test and if he succeeds well then Timmy can have Tommy.
That way, the well-minded parts of society *snigger* will have their chance to breed like brain-dead rabbits, but at least we can control the part of society most likely to produce bad parenting. Be a much less massive undertaking then on doing it to entire society even fit it into our stellar and perfect Jailing system (done with sarcasm).
Still completely devoted to every person having to do it at a certain age, but realistically I probably won't be around if or when society got its head out of its ass enough to implement some sort of collective insurance policy against stupidity. As a result might as well as meet halfway
This would be a good idea. After the point where you couldn't spank your kid I lost all hope of future generations. Nothing puts a kid inline like a swift kick in the ass (I would know). Also it would be nice to take away misused welfare that parents spend which should be part of the test. It used to be that natural selection would weed out the bad parents but since humanity has made that obsolete then we need a new one. I am not imagining a written one; I am more thinking about you are put into a lab had have to respond to different stimuli.
simple answer: yes and yes (respectively)Kuchinawa212 said:
Why? A few years ago there was a child crawling along the street. Police got it and took it home (no idea how they found it, just did). When the door opened again the mother just said "o, he got out again?". Police promptly took her baby away. Wouldn't it be nice (if we were older) if this person had to have a test to weed her out?stone0042 said:
