Should people have to get a license to reproduce?

[Incognito]

This is an offshoot of another thread, but I believe that people should indeed have to get a license to have children. If you fail to get a license you should be sterilized (tubal ligation and vasectomies are reversible). Extreme? Many people who simply look at their "rights" and "personal freedoms", instead of the larger picture, always think so. Consider that there are thousands of unfit parents per city that collect money from various agencies while not contribution to society at all. These same people who are supposed to be using their 'free money' to raise their children do not 9/10 times. Those children eventually become unproductive, violent, worthless adults just like their parents.

Its funny that movies that have touched on this subject always have some kind of cold, authoritarian backdrop, but what about the very real possibility that a solution like this could stem overpopulation, keep children from being born to unfit parents, and keep children from being used as meal tickets by people who just want to collect child support or government assistance?

[girl68]

Hell yes! And amen.

ETA: but that ain't never gonna happen.

[Take2]

The idea in abstract is appealing. It would solve a lot of problems.

In reality, the removal of a personal right is a pretty big deal. I am not in favor of the removal of personal rights, it doesn't seem to generally turn out well even when it is done with the best of intentions.

And then, who manages testing and enforced BC and removal of that enforcement? Here in the US, looking at the stellar government programs currently underway, how efficient and user-friendly they tend to be...I would be VERY afraid to hand my reproductive rights to the government.

And then, who pays for this program? Our government is already way past broke. This would be expensive to administer. And who gets to decide the parameters? And how do we assure that it doesn't just become yet another area where having money makes it easy and being poor makes it impossible?

[smackie9]

Be like China....you get a hefty fine for having more than the two you are allowed or go to jail.

[Junket]

Only the poor uneducated should be sterilized.

[Petit Papillon]

Mmm yes and no. After watching a movie " I am Sam" , I would feel super heartless if I'd take away a child from a parent like that and otherwise, a parent like this from a child like that.But then, there are cases where people are so ****ing stupid, they should really be shot down to be honest and not just " not able to reproduce" . But there are billions of people in the world.Each one is different and with the system we have right now, good people are having more and more problems and bad people have them just few or even none at all. If there'd be a system that would 100% mistake free decide whether someone should have a child or no, I would be for it. But there is no and there never will be.So we just have to suck it up and live with such ****ed up world.

[DoesntMatter]

lol, you can't be serious. A license to reproduce? People shouldn't need a license for anything

[doppelgaenger]

Compulsory sterilization programs are nothing new. The USA funded them [unsuccessfully] throughout the early-mid 20th century, and Nazi Germany designed such programs (inspired by US eugenics) to "maintain the purity of the race, as an end-solution to the Jew question." (quoting Hitler directly) This is inhumane on every level. You simply cannot force a person into sterilization without violating basic human rights. Who are we to judge people, whether they're fit for parenting? Furthermore, who are we to decide who gets to be born? Do you really think it's fair that people were euthanized and castrated for being black, Jewish, blind, mentally retarded/ill, criminals, etc., etc., list of endless causes and reasons?

Extreme? Many people who simply look at their "rights" and "personal freedoms", instead of the larger picture, always think so. Consider that there are thousands of unfit parents per city that collect money from various agencies while not contribution to society at all. These same people who are supposed to be using their 'free money' to raise their children do not 9/10 times. Those children eventually become unproductive, violent, worthless adults just like their parents.

So, according to you, people (criminals, unproductive people, etc.) should be sterilized (lol) because they are a "burden to society". You know who you sound like? Any idea at all? I'll give you a hint H _ _ _ _ R.

National Socialist Germany has been called “the racial state.” Nazi ideology identified Jews and Gypsies living inside and outside the Reich borders as foreign and parasitic elements which threatened the German body politic, while Nazi policy singled them out on biological bases for discrimination and destruction. Yet even within the German racial community there were those who were perceived to constitute a biological and economic danger: the “hereditarily compromised,” the “asocial,” and the “unproductive,” please see those words in quotes, who ostensibly made no significant contribution to society and whose existence placed a genetic and financial burden upon the state. Throughout the 12 years in which the Nazi party held power in Germany, National Socialists, political, civil, and medical authorities targeted individuals suffering from hereditary and congenital diseases, persons with disabilities, and institutionalized patients, for discrimination, anti-natal measures, and even for death. Where members of the deaf community fell within these parameters as persons with perceived hereditary disabilities, or as persons living in institutions in custodial settings, they figured as victims of radical medical and public health strategies. Targeting persons with disabilities began in the early months of the Nazi dictatorship, when a rapid synchronization of the medical and juridical communities, as well as that of the civil bureaucracy, ensured that eugenic theories, which Dr. Rosenhaft has just spoken about, embedded in National Socialist policy, or rather ideology, translated into state-sponsored measures.

[url]http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/discussions/details/2001-08-14/[/url]

Outrageous! IMO, you don't know a damn thing you're talking about... half-assed claims and generalizations.

The only reasonable solution we have to these apparent problems are orphanage homes and serving justice for the children who are mistreated/neglected/abused... you seem to be unaware of exactly how many great people in the history of this planet grew up in difficult situations, with tough childhoods, and abusive parents... not to mention the illegitimate sons and daughters, who went on to be the greatest inventors, writers, and leaders who ever lived. What would the world be like without those people? Well, let's just say it would be fücking dull, and you probably wouldn't even have electricity.

Sorry, I just can't take you seriously if that's how you think.

[SelflessnHumble]

I would be VERY afraid to hand my reproductive rights to the government.

But haven't you already relinquished the vast majority of your *God given rights* in the name of Gov't and freedom?

[Lovable]

I agree, do something about these unfit, uneducated, bascially BREEDERS!!! So many on all kinds of different government assistance, they get fat off of US hard working people. While we struggle with our everyday lives.

I see people in the grocery store with piles of shit in their carts & they pull out their Link cards (IL asistance cards for welfare). Here I am, with a little bit cause I don't have enough in my checking account to get a big ass pile of food in my cart. They ride off in their nice ass car while I wait to take the bus home. Shit's not fair at all!!

[Take2]

But haven't you already relinquished the vast majority of your *God given rights* in the name of Gov't and freedom?

I have been alarmed to see my rights and freedoms removed to "protect" me from dangers I don't actually believe are real. Yes. Why would that be a point in favor of losing even more?

I am willing to exchange some freedoms for the good of being part of society. I will wear clothes in public, follow traffic laws, refrain from punching idiots. Sure. But there has to be a balance, and I think a move toward legislating everything is a move in the wrong direction.

[Incognito]

lol, you can't be serious. A license to reproduce? People shouldn't need a license for anything

Ha, this is classic "I deserve everything and no one should tell me to do anything" talk from the typical American. It still makes me gawk in amazement though.

Compulsory sterilization programs are nothing new. The USA funded them [unsuccessfully] throughout the early-mid 20th century, and Nazi Germany designed such programs (inspired by US eugenics) to "maintain the purity of the race, as an end-solution to the Jew question." (quoting Hitler directly) This is inhumane on every level. You simply cannot force a person into sterilization without violating basic human rights. Who are we to judge people, whether they're fit for parenting? Furthermore, who are we to decide who gets to be born? Do you really think it's fair that people were euthanized and castrated for being black, Jewish, blind, mentally retarded/ill, criminals, etc., etc., list of endless causes and reasons?



So, according to you, people (criminals, unproductive people, etc.) should be sterilized (lol) because they are a "burden to society". You know who you sound like? Any idea at all? I'll give you a hint H _ _ _ _ R.


Outrageous! IMO, you don't know a damn thing you're talking about... half-assed claims and generalizations.

The only reasonable solution we have to these apparent problems are orphanage homes and serving justice for the children who are mistreated/neglected/abused... you seem to be unaware of exactly how many great people in the history of this planet grew up in difficult situations, with tough childhoods, and abusive parents... not to mention the illegitimate sons and daughters, who went on to be the greatest inventors, writers, and leaders who ever lived. What would the world be like without those people? Well, let's just say it would be fücking dull, and you probably wouldn't even have electricity.

Sorry, I just can't take you seriously if that's how you think.

Ok, I'm not talking about purifying the human race, so don't EVEN go there. I also made no mention of criminals, mentally disabled people or otherwise. Hitler, lol. Anyway, I am talking about people, humans in general, who are generally unfit to be parents. Why is breeding a basic right? Especially when overpopulation is a problem everywhere, which affects the entire world. You also say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and that my claims are half assed and nothing more than generalizations? Do you know anything about the welfare system and how many people are actually on it? Do you know how it is funded? Research that and then get back to me.

You also seem to think that the "real" solution is to allow children to be born to unfit parents, parents who don't want them, or parents who abuse them and build more orphanages? THAT is insane. It would cost A LOT to do that. Land acquisition, engineering, materials acquisition, construction, staff, utilities, food and activities for the children and maintenance/operating costs for the life of the facility.... they all cost money. Where does that money come from? More taxes. Plus orphanages don't solve the root problem, which licensing/sterilization would. Not to mention that orphanages are horrible places for the most part. Think prison for children, only worse because they have to try to "sell" themselves to prospective adopters. Its just like at a kennel where the young cute puppies get adopted the fastest and the older you get the slimmer your chances get.

I do agree with others here that it would probably never happen because people are too stuck on defending personal rights just for the sake of doing so, but we are mainly discussing the theory/principle here.

[Take2]

I do agree with others here that it would probably never happen because people are too stuck on defending personal rights just for the sake of doing so, but we are mainly discussing the theory/principle here.

What is your opinion on personal rights? Since there is no world legislation, I will stick to the US just for an example and since we both appear to live here, OP. Are you OK with all personal rights and freedoms being removed? If not, who decides which ones it is OK to remove?

Furthermore, what is the definition of "unfit to parent" and who gets to decide?Poverty cannot be the guide, I think, as I have met horrid wealthy parents and amazingly awesome parents who live far below the poverty line. Education level can't be the guide for the same reason. The fact is that the way we know someone is a crap parent is when they parent crappily. Until then, we don't really know how it will go. I don't see a realistic proactive approach to that problem.

What sort of test would accurately measure this ability or knowledge? My own parents were substandard in parenting skills, but I am sure they could have bubbled in the correct answers to questions like "should you punch your child in the face?" and "should you take your child to the doctor if he/she breaks a wrist?" and "should you buy your child new clothes when the old ones get ratty?" I am also sure that they believed at the time of my conception that they WOULD make the right choices if those issues ever arose. And could have spoken eloquently about it, given the chance. And yet they didn't make the right choices for any of those actual situations, and a whole lot more besides. Anyone who knows the story of my childhood would agree that my parents failed pretty badly at being a good mother and father to my brother and I.

Beyond that, is unfit parenting really the primary issue? My brother and I are both successful members of society. We are upper-middle-class, we keep the economy moving, we have clean and relatively happy children and we have friends and we are good at our rewarding careers and we don't have any bodies in our freezers or anything. We were very lucky that some other people stepped in to help fill in the gaps our parents left in our care. So I am a much bigger proponent of programs that fill in the gaps other parents leave so that other kids can become productive citizens rather than eugenics, which seems to sort of go against the very basic idea of what our country is.

[vashti]

The best people I know were born to parents that should never have had any children.

[Incognito]

Well all of the questions that you mention are woefully obvious, which is probably why you used them. Also, while I was not insinuating that people with low income shouldn't be allowed to have children anyone who wants children should be able to provide for them. Nothing major like the latest and greatest clothes, electronics, and other unnecessary things, but basics like good food, adequate clothing, clean and safe housing. To get a license for anything you have to meet requirements, and this would be the same. No one likes to think that someone will be constructing a qualification list that they have to meet before they can do/get something, but someone has to do it.

To answer your question about personal rights I can't give you some kind of short decisive answer, but I'll try to be short and detailed. Anyway, I think that everyone should have certain basic rights, however, if those rights start to encroach on the majority then they should be limited or taken away. Every issue is different though. If reproduction is viewed as a right, why should it be unfettered when overpopulation and hunger is a major problem (and not even talking about the whole world, there are plenty of places in the US where people are starving or where there are too many people living in a given area).

I do see your point about how to judge an unfit parent before they are actually a parent. That is why basic requirements would have to be met for a license. If people manage to get a license and then prove to be unfit (i.e. abusive, neglectful, not providing) then the child goes up for adoption/foster care and the parents lose their license. If someone goes through the licensing process though they are more likely to actually take care of their child. Unlike many today who just want an orgasm and a child is an unplanned/unwanted side effect. The sterilization would also allow those people to not have to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

There are other factors which would make this hard to implement like deciding what age to approve/disapprove people and what age sterilization should start at, but remember I'm not putting together a concrete proposition for this system. I am mainly debating the principle/theory.