It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A license to breed?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Following on from the thread, UK worst place for children to grow up

www.abovepolitics.com...

Should everyone have the right to breed automatically?

I believe the State should license you to have children.




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
yep i am all for a law to decide who brings kids into the world. but with population rates, they have to get the population to keep breeding.

all i say is why, most people cannot even look after themselves.

i notice in russia though they are paying people to have more kids, but the people say that the money only goes to education or housing, not for feeding the kids.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Im not in the UK but in America I see horrible children and people who are obviously unfit to be parents everyday. At first I thought issuing a license to breed was a pretty good idea but my distatse for government in our lives forced me to think the issue through a bit better.

Ive been told my conclusion is cruel, hateful, even racist but in my opinion its simply life.

Something enables these people to exist. Something supports high school dropouts, perpetual minimum wage earners, and those addicted to Star magazine. Its not the parents of such people because more often than not the individual in question is this way because the parents were this way. In certain areas there is a perpetual cycle of victimhood, hopelessness and other self-defeating mentalities. In a truly free economy these individuals, having failed to attain any marketable skill, knowledge or ability would surely fail to thrive and eventually die. What enables their existence is handouts, unregulated assitance and, depending on how you look at it, the irrational compassion or the ignorance of reality on behalf of those you demand such assistance be made available.

But then Ive been called a horrible person and a fascist. So what do I know.

Im not condoning the systematic destruction of a people or anything of the sort. Every human has the right to life, liberty and property. I also believe every human has the responsability to maintain their life, liberty and property. Nobody should take these things away from anyone. At the same time nobody else should be responsable to maintain these things for anyone else.

So call me cruel, call me hatefilled or call me whatever you like but as of now this is my conclusion.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous. Sure population rates are sky rocketing, and ideally we would implement some measures to control this, but at what cost? Are we going to punish individuals who wish to have a baby? What is going to be the determining factor in who can and can not have a child? Socio-economic factors coming into play? Since when is our economic standing a true indication of our parenting skills? Sure a nice bank account would "assist" in the process of raising a child, but it is hardly enough. Plenty of children grow up in poor homes and are nurtured with the appropriate love, affection, and sense of belonging that we all crave. And I am sure plenty exist in high socio-economic families where the children are giving none of the above.

Maybe we'll set up an office where people can come in and announce that they are looking to "get jiggy with it" and "pop one out" sometime soon. We'll get a couple of white guys in fancy suits enter our homes and take a few peaks around. Look at our credit history, we all know thats a great indicator, and see if we are going to manage to buy diapers for Little Johnny.

Whether we like it or not, we all have god given rights. I have the right to life, you nor anyone else has the right to take that from me. I have the right to make as many babies as I choose, and nobody is going to tell me otherwise. Society today has a lot of problems, but one thing that does exist is that we are allowed to become a mother and a father. We may suck at a lot of things, and we may not ever get the opportunity to do others. But we all have the right to be parents, and it is that measure alone that should determine our success as a mother and a father.

Grant it, some people should not be parents and should have their children taken from them. But nobody is going to tell them that they can not have a child.

How could you possibly govern this? How would we implement? Is any of this even feasible?

"Hi your honor, my clients today have been charged with giving birth to triplets without the proper documentation"
"How do you plead?"
"Guilty your honor.
Here is when the husband would throw himself under the bus for his "sugar britches".
"Damnit, that top just got me rolling inside, ya'know. Couldn't help myself. My fault really, muh ol' lady was just along for the ride. Take me sir, spare my little baby!"

As if we don't have enough crap to deal with already, this is what you are proposing we bombard our selves with in the future.

As Johnny Cash said, "I hang my head and cry".



[edit on 15-2-2007 by chissler]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Ever since the time of the Romans (and probably before) there has been the acknowledgement of a certain class of people who have absolutely nothing to offer society, nothing that is except the offspring that they produce.

Until "they" can create a way to provide the offspring sorely needed for the continuance of society, then there's nothing that can be done about people breeding.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Should everyone have the right to breed automatically?

Its a natural right. The state doesn't have the authority to take it away or regulate it.


phoenixhasrisin
there has been the acknowledgement of a certain class of people who have absolutely nothing to offer society, nothing that is except the offspring that they produce.

Indeed, they are 'the proles'. From which we get 'the proletariat'.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Should everyone have the right to breed automatically?

Breed? Oh I thought you meant breathe. That takes up natural resources too!
It's not really a 'right' as they already have the ability. It's a narural part of being an animal.

I believe the State should license you to have children.

How do you think the state should enforce this? Any ideas? China hasn't exactly faired well with their one child policy.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
You need a license to operate a vehicle, to own a business, to fish, to hunt, to get married, to perform medicine, to vote...you even need a license to hold a bloody yard sale. And yet, any arsehat can breed and raise a child. The single-greatest irony of our world is that the single most important job on Earth requires no training, no oversight, and no license to prove competency.

To be honest, I'm in favor of a license to breed, but under the condition that I determine the criteria. It's kind of one of the driving forces behind why I wish to become world dictator.

As for the punishment of breeding without a license, I should think the punishment would be obvious: the child would receive zero government benefits until a fairly-priced subscription to those services were paid for. For chronic offenders, sterilization or banishment of the offender would be neccessary.

Now, like I said, this wouldn't work unless I was world dictator. I can't see this policy even remotely flying in any sort of democratic government.

My requirements would be pretty simple.

  • The adult must prove a partner (spouse or union) exists and lives with them to assist in raising the child, and both have the intent of doing so for the long term. They will sign a contract to this effect, violation of which will be an automatic garnishment from their wages or one of our handy re-education centers.

  • The adult must show that they or their partner earn collectively enough wages to support a child versus a reasonable cost estimate of doing so until legal working age of the child. They must also agree to a mandatory trust fund that no less than 5% of their wage will go towards, to be used for the purposes of education or medical treatment.

  • The mother must show that she has been free of any harmful drugs for a period of no less than 6 months. "Harmful" will depend upon the decision of a panel of qualified scientists and doctors whose specialty is in fetal care.

  • The partners must undergo a mandatory course in basic care, feeding, etc. For instance the neccessary suppliments and precautions of fetal care, and basic child-care classes.

  • The partners will be issued a state-licensed monkey. If they can demonstrate competent care of a monkey for one year, they will be given a license to breed. If the monkey dies, and an autopsy shows it to be the fault of the partners, they will be blacklisted from the breeding license.

    Anyway, that's it. I know it looks like a lot, but you'd be amazed how many people can't even manage to accomplish those 5 simple tasks.



  • posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 09:49 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by riley

    How do you think the state should enforce this? Any ideas? China hasn't exactly faired well with their one child policy.


    How about some sort of reversable vasectomy when your born? We you get your license just show it to a doctor and you get a free reversal.

    I personally think that a license to have kids would be a great idea. You could set it to low standards. I heard that a child born in the UK costs, on average, £180,000. All you have to do is prove that you already have that sort of money or have a job(maybe a reference from your employer also) that can provide £180,000 on top of the bills you already have to pay over a 16 year period.

    easy.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 09:55 AM
    link   
    A licence to breed eh?

    Well, one of the best tests of any proposed law is whether or not it is enforcable and this one would certainly be a bit tricky. I mean, we can't even police a TV licence effectively so what chance would we have with this? Are we to commission a fleet of intercourse detector vans to roam the darkened streets with a bloke sitting inside ready to pounce with a bucket of cold water as required?

    It doesn't sound too practical to me.


    But on the other hand, just think on for a moment - suppose it could be policed:

    No schoolgirl single mothers...
    No families of half a dozen screaming horrors all living on benefits...
    No children born to career criminals...
    No ferral packs of yobs roaming the streets...
    Children born only to those who are prepared to take responsibility for them...

    It doesn't sound such a bad idea does it? Perhaps it does take away what may be preceived a basic human right but imagine all the lost human rights that the rest of us may stand to recover as a result.

    Now, who issues the licences?



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:56 PM
    link   
    I'm with the libra 100% on this one.
    (well, except for the monkey part)


    We need a license to do many things in this country and the fact that unfit people are having kids is really screwing up a lot of things. What's wrong with requiring a license to develop and care for our most precious resource???



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:17 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
    I'm with the libra 100% on this one.
    (well, except for the monkey part)



    What if we offered a selection of monkeys?

    Or is seen as primatism (primate favoritism)? If so, we'd be happy to offer Chimpanzees and Orangs... Gorillas might be a bit much though.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:36 PM
    link   
    I really have to disagree on this one guys.

    What is some license or permit going to do? Is it actually going to filter out the bad parents? I've argued this issue before, and to be honest I was on your side of the coin, but I've changed my beliefs. It is naive to think that implementing some standard for parents, that it will weed out any "unfit" parents. Sometimes it is the birth of a child that causes an alcoholic, drug abuser, etc., to straighten out their life. I understand that we are not saying economic factors are going to be the lone determining factors, but surely they will influence the decision of those who given the responsibility to play god. Money does not translate into good parents. Poverty does not translate into bad parents. I fail to see how we could possibly implement or govern this issue.

    Yeah it is frustrating to think that any one can make a baby, and become a parent. We need training to drive a car or even flip a burger at a fast food joint, but nothing is required to be a parent. Yeah, it is an issue but this is not the answer.

    We have standards that exist today that need to be reinforced. Child services need to do their job and focus on children who may be at risk. Educators need to be aware to what is happening in their classroom and see who might be at risk. Keeping it mind that it would be better to take a closer look and be wrong, then turn the other cheek and be right. Programs do exist that assure bad parents do not get to keep their children, we simply need to work with them.

    Allowing some government office to play god and determine who can and can not have children is wrong on so many levels. I'm actually surprised this notion has garnered any support.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 02:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by chissler
    Allowing some government office to play god and determine who can and can not have children is wrong on so many levels. I'm actually surprised this notion has garnered any support.


    Fine, fine! We'll toss in gorillas as well. Sheesh. Happy now?

    In practical format, a license to breed probably will never happen. From a utilitarian standpoint, in a utopian (or dystopian) society, population could be controlled to expand, decrease, or stagnate as needs demand. We might see this in several generations, once we get around to colonizing planets and such, since overloading the resources of a colony in an otherwise hostile environment might cause it to collapse.

    But on a planet like Earth, as widespread as humanity is, I don't think it will be feasible. The idea of sterilizing babies with a reversable procedure would most likely have too many harmful effects upon human development, and runs the risk of "what if one day we can't reverse it anymore?"

    Really, in terms of absolute control, it couldn't be done. Hence my suggestion that the penalty be a lack of access to government services until those services are paid for. It's more of a deterrent than anything else.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 02:38 PM
    link   
    drugs in food, if a person gets a license than he is injected with a temporary antedote. at the end of the day, you would not have to regulate both sexes.

    surely hormones in women, count alot when they are having there most fertile time. if some sort of drug was compulsary than they probably cound control it.

    or when they microchip everyone, they may prohibit the right hormones from activating until someone gets a license. we saw recently in the guardian how they have detected a way to read peoples intentions. if they microchip everyone, and blocking certain hormones, until they get a temporay pass to procreate.

    anyway that stuff may come in the future.

    see the link on prisonplanet.com, about in pakisatn people are rejecting vacines incase they have a steriliser in them.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 02:51 PM
    link   
    I will chime in on this one:
    I for one am in favor of such a license. The reasons are the following:
    In todays society, there are way too many women who go out and get stupid only to then regret what they have done, children are given anything they want, and then what is the point of chirstmas? Children run out of control, and many are either put into foster care or just simply abandoned. Too many mothers are killing their own children, but just using the excuse of temporary insanity. Something has to give, as this can not keep going on. Children are killing children and parents are afraid to be parents to the point of the child doing anything he/she wants. If you think I am kidding, go into any mall around Christmas and watch, just watch the interactions of the parents with their kids. No I think the time to start licsencing is needed, and make them a few, that way children will be cherished and raised to be a productive member of society.

    Just my thoughts.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 03:00 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by thelibra
    As for the punishment of breeding without a license, I should think the punishment would be obvious: the child would receive zero government benefits until a fairly-priced subscription to those services were paid for. For chronic offenders, sterilization or banishment of the offender would be neccessary.


    To reference this deterrent, I ask this question. Is it necessary to punish the child for the behaviour of their parents? If the parents are guilty of conceiving a child with out the proper documentation, is it appropriate to withhold funds that would of went towards food, diapers, clothing, etc., for the child? None of this is feasible in my opinion, but for the sake of discussion, we can consider it for the time being. If we were to implement this, I would much rather see a system where those guilty of this infraction were forced to give something back to society rather than deprived of some much needed funds.

    Another question, would this create more problems than it would solve?

    Would we create a huge "black market" of babies? Government won't let you have one, come to us! Make it illegal and your creating an environment for a market to flourish. I think the problems that would be created as a result of this legislation, would severely outweigh the resolutions.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 03:09 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by chissler

    To reference this deterrent, I ask this question. Is it necessary to punish the child for the behaviour of their parents? If the parents are guilty of conceiving a child with out the proper documentation, is it appropriate to withhold funds that would of went towards food, diapers, clothing, etc., for the child?


    No, but it could be concievable to take the child away and place it with a family who was more than willing to take care of the child and then steralize the parents. I also know that in the US, alot of the tax's go into the welfare system so that we can take care of children that were ill concieved by the parents or a mother who wants to keep having children so she can recieve welfare checks. Consider this, a mother with 3 children, has rental assistance, living in a nice place, food assistance, able to eat steaks, free medical, while those who make it possible for her to take care of her children are just barely able to make ends meet.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 03:27 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by sdcigarpig
    No, but it could be concievable to take the child away and place it with a family who was more than willing to take care of the child and then steralize the parents.


    Steralize the parents? Some of us seem to take a lot of our luxuries for granted. Who are we to sit here and say who is and is not worthy or parenthood? We are going to decide who we steralize now?

    ...Land of the Free? ...Right.


    Originally posted by sdcigarpig
    I also know that in the US, alot of the tax's go into the welfare system so that we can take care of children that were ill concieved by the parents or a mother who wants to keep having children so she can recieve welfare checks. Consider this, a mother with 3 children, has rental assistance, living in a nice place, food assistance, able to eat steaks, free medical, while those who make it possible for her to take care of her children are just barely able to make ends meet.


    That is a stereotype if I ever heard one. Do you live on welfare? Social assistance? If you have not, I have. As a young child when I lived with my mother, a single mother, she collected social assistance. We did not have the luxury of rental assistance, we did not live in a nice place, we had no food assistance, and we did not eat steaks. So rather than spewing stereotypes, stick to the facts. Yes, some people abuse the system. I do not deny that. But don't make it seem that these individuals are living the high life. For those that are abusing the system, the legislation already exists for them to have their children removed. It is hardly justified to remove the children and then proceed to sterilize them.



    posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:01 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Freedom ERP
    I believe the State should license you to have children.


    Unfortunately, I think a vast majority of people would agree with you. There would definitely be some benefits to something like this..but what of the negative side?

    How exactly would you regulate and enforce something like this? Require males or females or both to take hormones to keep from reproducing? Most drugs are only 99% effective...what if there is an accident? You go to prison for having an unlicensed child? What of gay and lesbians? Would they be required to take it? Are they not fertile too? Would they outlaw sex? Can you imagine getting arrested for having sex without a license? Something like this is only the beginning of the end for personal freedoms.

    crazy I tell you...




    top topics



     
    6
    <<   2  3  4 >>

    log in

    join