Parental Licensing

i just got a chance to sit down and read whats been going through peoples heads... and i guess i need to do some clarifying

when i said examinations i ment a series of checks. ie. financial, criminal, psycological, etc... though i did like the idea of requiring applicants to take a class and pass a test or two.
 
Kharn said:
What gives them the right to create life and then destroy it?
Click to expand...

What gives anybody the right? If you ask me, the solution isn't to ban anybody from reproducing, but to be more vigilant concerning the welfare of children in our society.

You say junkies, alcoholics and mentally handicapped people shouldn't be allowed to have children. What will you do to stop them?
 
I honestly think it is simple for some in the US.

If people had something else to remind them of the consequences, there wouldn't be so many fucked up little children around the world. The Chinese practices are a bit much, though.

I would theorize on required sterilization any time the govt needs to come in and support your children, you have children but cannot provide a family, or you take on more than you have ability for in your own means, plus a reasonable passing down of blood through two children to start with. (That is considered adequate by genealogists, and if the parents need social support for those two children, that is permittable - but no more than that.) This might sound like rich families could have more children, and it should be right to a ceiling, as the poor families cannot provide a stable life or income for the children. Their parents are probably either working multiple jobs in order to take care of them, or the children are in a Welfare House, where Jabba the Slut shits out a differently-colord kid every 9 months.*

The fine for bringing a child you cannot support would be for the child to go to adoption and you have to pay a foster charge for that child (unless said child goes to someone else within the family), on top of required sterilization. If you cannot pay, public service. Lineage is still observed through all of this, through foster care.

This, ultimately, is based around the child's welfare and not that of the parents or what they can bring in through Welfare by having more dependents. It also would also tend towards a national genealogy bureau or something similar, and help avoid current Social Security messes in the US as well as create a more concrete system to catch the parents from split families who do not contribute to the upkeep of their child.

* Not a racist remark, just a rather accurate remark in many occasions. When you're listening to your police buddies reporting a paddy wagon request over the band, using the phrase "four to a whore, and nobody brought the Saran Wrap - notify social services for the children", it paints a pretty good picture. :D
 
Y'know, if we'd just neuter half the third world countries and adopt their children to become productive members of our societies which are missing children en masse, we'd theoretically solve two problems at once.

Sadly reality doesn't work that way. In the Real World (tm) we have obsolete economical systems requiring infinitely exponential growth rates without respect to the resources and space left for those future generations.

What we need is birth control.
It's a radical approach that's bound to meet a lot of resistance, tho, so we got a problem there.

If we follow Machiavelli's theory an authoritarian system would be required to lay the foundation for a working democratic system (as opposed to the "defunct" democratic systems we have), but I don't see a chance for a capable "altruist" dictator coming up in the predictable future.

I guess we're doomed unless people become willing to cash in some freedoms for the benefit of the society as a whole before we're past the point-of-no-return.

...

Did you notice the initials of "point-of-no-return" have a Levenstein difference of 1 to the "porn"?
 
Well, if you are planning population control by regulating who gets to have kids, than it seems fair that you-
(1) Allow people to not conceive
(2) Allow for very broad abortion rights.

To be honest, I am not sure how you can have equality in a society unless women have absolute freedom to abort a child up to the point of actual birth.

(needless to say, this makes me very unpopular with certain christians).
 
welsh said:
Well, if you are planning population control by regulating who gets to have kids, than it seems fair that you-
(1) Allow people to not conceive
(2) Allow for very broad abortion rights.

To be honest, I am not sure how you can have equality in a society unless women have absolute freedom to abort a child up to the point of actual birth.

(needless to say, this makes me very unpopular with certain christians).
Click to expand...

Heh, not only witch Christians.

I do see where you are going, tho.

The interesting thing is that the same argument of "absolute freedom" is used against abortion, but I personally do not consider fetusses human as-is, although I do agree that unlike other creatures they might be compared to, fetusses DO have the ability to become human throughout their natural development.

I got to say that using that argument against abortion seems like saying I couldn't kill an ant because it could lead to the evolution of a humanoid species at some point -- I'm obviously exaggerating here, but I'm not trying to convince anyone but merely state my point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top