You know, there is something called natural selection, all the dipshits who are terrible parents so bad that anything they give birth to dies within a month, yes, its tragic, but that's natural selection for ya.
Should You Have to Get a License to Raise Children?
- Thread starter Blatherscythe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, most definitely, it would also be a good way of controlling the population and improving our gene pool which both ultimately help towards a generally nicer planet.
Yeah and then we should let everybody wear the same colour so nobody feels left out. Get everybody to have little numbers tattooed on their wrists so we don't forget who anyone is. Then just to make sure nobody gets lost, build a big wall around everyone and have cameras and microphones everywhere.
I sort of agree that some people shouldnt be allowed to breed, namely your stereotypical council estate drooler that has 9 children who then has 9 more children who grow up to be just like thier parents. Maybe we should just stick a limit on how many children people are allowed to have, we've got a population crisis as it is.
The only problem with a license is that obviously some people would just flat out fail, but others it would be less clear cut. I like to smoke a bit of pot, and my mother has borderline Bipolar disorder(it's hereditary isnt it?), so given the governments tough stance on stuff such as pot, I would likely not be allowed to have kids, regardless of whether I was a model parent and that pot would barely have an impact on your child(obviously I would only smoke when I wasnt around him/her). So I sort of agree, but not wholey
The only problem with a license is that obviously some people would just flat out fail, but others it would be less clear cut. I like to smoke a bit of pot, and my mother has borderline Bipolar disorder(it's hereditary isnt it?), so given the governments tough stance on stuff such as pot, I would likely not be allowed to have kids, regardless of whether I was a model parent and that pot would barely have an impact on your child(obviously I would only smoke when I wasnt around him/her). So I sort of agree, but not wholey
Actually i've been told that that's not true at ALL. We spent an entire period on this in my psych class, and that was the exact opposite of what my psych professor (whao has worked as a therapist) told the class. He said the real reason that abuse can be such a problem is that from a parent's perspective it looks like it works. He told us that much of the time abusive parents don't originally intend to hit their kids, and initially resist the option but once they give in, it becomes an easier and easier fallback option to just hit the kid because it gets him to stop. He also told us that the majority of abusers that are forced to go through education never abuse againdanpascooch said:
Controling the population in Developed countries is not needed, in fact, if we are not careful, the birth rate will drop so low that we condom ourselves to extinction (Haha, a pun).Eagle Est1986 said:
In the UK, the population would be dropping if it was not for immigration.
Africa, Asia and South America? They are the ones who are multiplying like rabbits.
I love the idea of needing a license for children.
1) Pump a sterilising agent into the water supply, neutering everyone.
2) Only supply the antidote to people that can complete enough challenges to prove they're not complete fucking retards.
It'd solve so many problems in one fell swoop!
EDIT: Although sterilising agent in the water would soon cause quite a few massive problems for the wildlife of the world. Work would need to be done to solve that issue!
1) Pump a sterilising agent into the water supply, neutering everyone.
2) Only supply the antidote to people that can complete enough challenges to prove they're not complete fucking retards.
It'd solve so many problems in one fell swoop!
EDIT: Although sterilising agent in the water would soon cause quite a few massive problems for the wildlife of the world. Work would need to be done to solve that issue!
If my dreams come true, and I would become the all powerfull dictator of the world. Then yeah I would do it something like that. I would go for an actual test though, when a parent is that bad that a child dies due to neglect or abuse then it often shows. The exam would have to be oral do, you can't use a set of stats for deciding wether a person could be a good parent or not.
However in reality such an idea is impossible, and a government should be thrown over when they would try to pass a bill like this.
I'm a full blown socialist, and I think the government should have a great control over the economy. However deciding wetter a parents has the right to raise the child is not a power any government should ever hold. If a freedom like this is taken away, then the population becomes very vulnerable to lose all others.
(Unless the person in question has already had a child before, and screwed that one up. Or if the person is too seriously mentally handicapt to raise a child.)
However in reality such an idea is impossible, and a government should be thrown over when they would try to pass a bill like this.
I'm a full blown socialist, and I think the government should have a great control over the economy. However deciding wetter a parents has the right to raise the child is not a power any government should ever hold. If a freedom like this is taken away, then the population becomes very vulnerable to lose all others.
(Unless the person in question has already had a child before, and screwed that one up. Or if the person is too seriously mentally handicapt to raise a child.)
Ok let me rephrase that in a less angry way. I don't understand how anyone can support selective breeding with all of the moral and ethical issues inherent to the idea. these include: Why should people not be allowed to decide what they do with their on bodies, what gives a small group of people the right to sit in judgment of the potential of all of humanity, is it wise to give the government control of who is allowed to be born, what is to stop the from adding criteria, and how do you even go about determining how likely a kid is to be abused as in many cases the parent does not intend to abuse or eve hit the child initially?Swollen Goat said:
I seriously think that the best thing that could happen to humanity is to lose roughly 4/5 of it. I'm not saying that all the stupid people should die or something, just that the world is way to over populated. And if we don't want to disrupped the balance of nature to such a degree that it would come back to us and kill even more. Then we should just drastically drop in numbers.
The above opinion is of mine as a scientist, trying to look at things at a completly non-emotional way. This kind of thinking is however the definition of unetical, just like your question.
Seriously man, reflect on the question for just one second. If you don't realize that the propesition you raised, might indeed be for the best, but still morally wrong. Then you are in desperate need of a good ethnics course.
The above opinion is of mine as a scientist, trying to look at things at a completly non-emotional way. This kind of thinking is however the definition of unetical, just like your question.
Seriously man, reflect on the question for just one second. If you don't realize that the propesition you raised, might indeed be for the best, but still morally wrong. Then you are in desperate need of a good ethnics course.
Its not practical, enforcing would be nigh on impossible, and yes it seems orwellian.
Doesn't mean I dont like the idea.
Honestly I thought that a modified version of Milo and Kate would be a good use of kinect for this very purpose. Perhaps more specifically as a rehab tool once the state has to step in and take kids.
Doesn't mean I dont like the idea.
Honestly I thought that a modified version of Milo and Kate would be a good use of kinect for this very purpose. Perhaps more specifically as a rehab tool once the state has to step in and take kids.