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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
The problem with licensing/regulating people and their reproductive capabilities is the premise that we somehow are property of the state. I am a sovereign unto myself and any sanctions placed on me personally are a declaration of war.


Wow... I gave up on this thread but decided to check back in. I couldn't believe how many people on this forum actually think this is a good idea. Also, some of the people in this thread sound like little Hitlers. I can actually hear Adolph saying who can and can't reproduce... It almost sickens me.

Blah blah blah... I just want to say that I agree with you 100% on this subject WW!




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
If we had a licensing system, then we could ensure that children in the world who need a family, can get one.

And it would stop many families from being a burden on the state. Why should my taxes be wasted on families who will never add any value to society. At the cost of curing cancer



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Cancer was cured back in 1936 by Royal Raymond Rife but the cure was never given to the public because of people who want to keep the herd down to a manageable number. Solution? Let the people die. Failing that we are now looking at licensing people to breed. Great plan. *sarcasm*

You can't legislate morality. I came from a long line of losers. I'm not contributing much to society-at least compared to Hawkings or Feynman, et al. By this line of reasoning, I should not have cranked out 5 wonderful human beings who are also not Feynmans or Hawkings'.

Who determines what or whom is valuable to society? How is value determined? And if the mob mentality changes it's mind to say that what was valuable last month is not valuable this month, should all the previously valuable but no longer valuable people be euthanised?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Wow... I gave up on this thread but decided to check back in. I couldn't believe how many people on this forum actually think this is a good idea.


Let me ask you. What do you think about the law requiring licenses to drive and get married and vote? What's the explicit difference between requiring a licence to marry and requiring a licence to create children out of that marriage?

Isn't having children a much bigger responsibility?

It's not about being Hitler and choosing who can and can't have kids, it's about making sure that people who procreate at least have a chance of doing a better job than many are today.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
BH... before I delve into this too much, I need to ask; Are you taking this stance for the sake of discussion? Or do you truly believe that some sort of "licensing" program is the way to go?

I mean, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to govern who is and is not a parent. But I feel that the system that already exists needs to be reinforced to find an appropriate solution. We have the legislation in place, we just need to enforce it. Attempting to govern who can, and can not procreate, seems a little hypocritical to everything that your nation is based on. I see where you are coming from, and I agree that it does have merit, but do you not see the problems that this legislation would create?

On paper, this is a valid discussion. In reality, it is a little absurd.

My opinion of course.



[edit on 21-2-2007 by chissler]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Since I don't have children and I don't think a licensing program would ever be put into practice, I'm playing the devil's advocate for the sake of discussion.

What system and legislation is already in place? I'm not sure what you're referring to.


Originally posted by chissler
Attempting to govern who can, and can not procreate, seems a little hypocritical to everything that your nation is based on.


Please hear me. I'm not suggesting we govern who can and cannot procreate. I'm suggesting we LICENSE those who do by sending them through parenting classes and financial awareness classes, etc. I'm suggesting making them aware of what their future really holds before they decide to have 6 kids. ANd I'm suggesting the government stop paying for young single women to have kids.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What system and legislation is already in place? I'm not sure what you're referring to.


I'm sure each locality would have different offices, but Children Services or other Social Services would be employed to check out the homes of different parents who are suspected to be abusing their rights as parents. It's not perfect, but is the best we have.

We need to base our practice on the fact that, it is better to ask and be wrong, then not ask and be right.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Please hear me. I'm not suggesting we govern who can and cannot procreate. I'm suggesting we LICENSE those who do by sending them through parenting classes and financial awareness classes, etc. I'm suggesting making them aware of what their future really holds before they decide to have 6 kids.


I agree to that completely, and I've said the same many of times. For example, California is currently trying to place a ban on spanking of children. To deter this behaviour, they are putting a punishment of a $1000 fine or a short prison sentence. This boggles my mind that we would offer this as a deterrent. Why not educate the parents? Why not send them to programs, courses, or clinics to gain some talents that they currently do not possess?

My apologies on construing your words.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
ANd I'm suggesting the government stop paying for young single women to have kids.


This is a tough one though. Mistakes happen and sometimes these young, single women are a victim. Not all, but some. Denying this assistance is ultimately going to punish the child for the behaviour of the parents.

Speaking off of memory, but I do believe this was one of your own quotes.

I'd rather give it to someone who didn't need it, rather than deprive someone who did need it.

Wise words.

I believe it was you who said it, if not, feel free to say it was.





[edit on 21-2-2007 by chissler]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Say licensing was a reality. A few snags might arise.
1) A surrogate mother needs to go get parenting classes for a child she has no intention of raising.
2) A fertile woman taking birth control gets pregnant despite birth control. (Happened to me). Would/should she penalized? Forced to abort? Forced to pay for the abortion she doesn't want out of her own pocket? Under the UCC 1-207 (a law already in place, not a theoretical one), one is not obligated to pay for services/goods one did not willingly, knowingly or voluntarily request. Forced abortion would fall under that category.
3) If a female of child-bearing years is the victim of rape, incest, date rape, or even consensual sex and gets pregnant (1st pregnancy) without a license; should she be fined? Further victimized for her "crime" of getting pregnant without a license? Should the sperm donor also be fined, criminalized for his "accessory" to "HER" crime? Would such "crimes" demand prison time? Fines? Community service? Loss of right to vote or carry guns, forced wearing of chastity belt for x number of weeks or months? Such a law would ultimately target women as "criminals". If a "guilty" woman named her sperm donor and he refuted the claim, should he be forced to submit to DNA testing in order to prove his innocence?
4) If your house doesn't pass inspection, if you're too poor to afford quality furniture, if you piss off the inspector will a couple be denied licensing? Will only the well-to-do and/or the politically correct be allowed to contribute to the genetic pool?
Training people to be parents requires training (by example) of the would be parents not licensing. Lots of people have licenses to drive and yet car wrecks, drunk drivers, senile drivers, sleepy drivers abound despite their licensing and training.
Lots of people have marriage licenses and some states even require pre marriage counseling in addition to licensing and yet our national divorce rate is still in the 50% range.
I work with Doctors and Nurses who have training and licensing and yet are blooming idiots. (not all-just some) Having a piece of paper does not equate to actual skills, common sense, compassion, patience, self-examination, willingness to admit when you're wrong and remedy your error-all requirements for would-be parents.
In such a scenario as licensing for parental RIGHTS (not priviledge) only the lawyers win.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
My apologies on construing your words.


I don't think you did, hon. And believe me, if you did, I'd let you know.




I'd rather give it to someone who didn't need it, rather than deprive someone who did need it.


Nope. Not as far as I can recall. That's not me. Unless I was in a drunken stupor when I said it. That sounds far too kind-hearted to be something I said.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Nope. Not as far as I can recall. That's not me. Unless I was in a drunken stupor when I said it. That sounds far too kind-hearted to be something I said.




I always appreciate honesty. Interesting. I would of bet the mortgage that it was you who had said it. Now I will have to put my thinking cap on and figure out who said it.

I know it pertained to homeless individuals, and the notion that some do not need it, but it was better to give it to someone who didn't need it than not give it to someone who did.

Ah well, live and learn.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I apologize for taking so long to reply.

BH,

If it is licensing you are talking about... Then that is a different story. If the majority of the people in this country agree that something like that should be required, then I will go for it. To me, a guy with a libertarian mind set, it sounds like more governmental, bureaucratic, paper-shuffling, big brotheresque type non-sense.

My quip about Hitler was directed at those who thought sterilization, mandatory birth control and the likes were a good idea. It just bugs me sometimes when certain people feel that they are more... Enlightened, intelligent, informed... Get what I mean... I don't know. I went out last night and tied one on. Not thinking to clearly this morning.

*cheers*



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
As I started the thread, let me give my answers


Originally posted by whitewave

1) A surrogate mother needs to go get parenting classes for a child she has no intention of raising.


Not sure this would happen with a licensing system. As part of getting the license, you would have to provide proof of how you will bring the child up.


Originally posted by whitewave

2) A fertile woman taking birth control gets pregnant despite birth control. (Happened to me). Would/should she penalized? Forced to abort? Forced to pay for the abortion she doesn't want out of her own pocket? Under the UCC 1-207 (a law already in place, not a theoretical one), one is not obligated to pay for services/goods one did not willingly, knowingly or voluntarily request. Forced abortion would fall under that category.


I think this goes back to have to enforce the law. One option would be to make us all in-fertile and then have to take something to be fertile. However I think every piece of law should have some provisions, and if your example was proven, then the law should ensure that the woman does not get penalized and supports her.


Originally posted by whitewave

3) If a female of child-bearing years is the victim of rape, incest, date rape, or even consensual sex and gets pregnant (1st pregnancy) without a license; should she be fined? Further victimized for her "crime" of getting pregnant without a license? Should the sperm donor also be fined, criminalized for his "accessory" to "HER" crime? Would such "crimes" demand prison time? Fines? Community service? Loss of right to vote or carry guns, forced wearing of chastity belt for x number of weeks or months? Such a law would ultimately target women as "criminals". If a "guilty" woman named her sperm donor and he refuted the claim, should he be forced to submit to DNA testing in order to prove his innocence?.


See the first part of my answer for point 3. For rape, incest, date rape. This should be no crime and the woman will get the support from the state we needs. For consensual sex, if it is the law, then the law must be applied. I have never seen this as a law targeting women only. To produce a child required an egg and sperm, so both parties would be liable to the law. Of course with DNA testing, the father of a child can be determined.


Originally posted by whitewave

4) If your house doesn't pass inspection, if you're too poor to afford quality furniture, if you piss off the inspector will a couple be denied licensing? Will only the well-to-do and/or the politically correct be allowed to contribute to the genetic pool?
Training people to be parents requires training (by example) of the would be parents not licensing. Lots of people have licenses to drive and yet car wrecks, drunk drivers, senile drivers, sleepy drivers abound despite their licensing and training.
Lots of people have marriage licenses and some states even require pre marriage counseling in addition to licensing and yet our national divorce rate is still in the 50% range.
I work with Doctors and Nurses who have training and licensing and yet are blooming idiots. (not all-just some) Having a piece of paper does not equate to actual skills, common sense, compassion, patience, self-examination, willingness to admit when you're wrong and remedy your error-all requirements for would-be parents.
In such a scenario as licensing for parental RIGHTS (not priviledge) only the lawyers win.


Bringing a child into this world is about giving them the best environment and chance and housing must be part of that. So yes is your housing does not met the requirements of the law, NO license.

Multiple inspectors and there should be the right to appeal decisions.

Training requires constant improvement and no system is going to get it right all of the time. If we can improve the life of just a single child with a licensing system, then it will be worth.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Now I will have to put my thinking cap on and figure out who said it.


Let me know what you find out. If I did say it, it was in a different context, which is possible, and now I'm curious.


Lost Sailor, I am also of the Libertarian mindset. However, since we license all the other "rights" I mentioned and stupid people are breeding like rabbits, and the government is supporting this behavior, I think something needs to change.

I'd be all for taking away government support for people who abuse the system. I KNOW they're out there in droves. I've lived "on the streets", I've even received government assistance myself (I actually needed it and it was very temporary). It's easy to get and many who DO NOT need it are getting it.

So, firstly, I'd support an overhaul of the system. Failing that, I think something should be done about the abuse of the system. And as a point of discussion, perhaps one of the options would be to license breeding.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I'm still stunned that we're talking about preventing the poor from breeding. If people have a problem with it, rather than chemically making people infertile [which can cause cancer anyway] ..lobby to remove tax cuts for multi m/billionairs and give it to struggeling families [should just about cover them all]. Do they contribute to society? Lets not forget that just because parents have money.. it doesn't mean that they are more nurturing or less abusive.

Edit.. have to agree with BH on the parenting classes. They should be mandatory for all new parents.. including Brittney and Michael Jackson.


[edit on 22-2-2007 by riley]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
1) A surrogate mother needs to go get parenting classes for a child she has no intention of raising.


The license isn't for surrogate parents, it's for the actual parents. The people who would be raising the child would have to get the license.



2) A fertile woman taking birth control gets pregnant despite birth control. (Happened to me). Would/should she penalized?


No. She'd have to obtain a license. (Take the classes, take a test) If she refused to obtain a license, the child would not be covered by any government based medical care or other government program. She can have children without a license, there are just many more risks.



3) If a female of child-bearing years is the victim of rape, incest, date rape, or even consensual sex and gets pregnant (1st pregnancy) without a license; should she be fined? Further victimized for her "crime" of getting pregnant without a license?


If she wants to have the child, she would have to get a license else take the previously mentioned risks. Having a child without a license would not be a crime. The parents would just be responsible for the entirety of its care.

And "unlicensed child" would have no access to government support.



4) If your house doesn't pass inspection, if you're too poor to afford quality furniture, if you piss off the inspector will a couple be denied licensing?


The license is much like a driver's license. No home inspection, no denying of licensing, unless the parent refuses to take the tests or fails.



Training people to be parents requires training (by example) of the would be parents not licensing.


And where do the parent's get their example? Wouldn't it be better to at least educate them on what to expect? Then let them decide if it's really what they want to do.



Lots of people have licenses to drive and yet car wrecks, drunk drivers, senile drivers, sleepy drivers abound despite their licensing and training.


Licensing wouldn't make perfect parents. It would OPEN eyes to the realities of parenting. The costs, the time, the energy, the realities of what it's like to have a child. No doubt if young women with stars in their eyes about "having a baby" knew the realities of sleepless nights, poopy diapers, the cost, being vomited on, what they would have to give up, the demands a baby put on their lives, they might just change their minds and DEMAND contraception instead of thinking "It won't happen to me"...

Licensing wouldn't make perfect parents. Imagine if we didn't have licensing for driving... Then imagine the improvement if licensing were required.

Or doctors or nurses. What if they practiced without licensing. Or contractors, house-builders, teachers, plumbers, electrical workers, I could go on. We license just about everything and for good reason.

It doesn't PREVENT anyone from doing these things, it just EDUCATES them before hand.

IMO, licensing (education) would help everyone, but would be targeted toward young and/or single people. People in a finantially stable situation who have already had a kid or two already know what to expect, but young inexperienced people don't.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Black's Law Dictionary definition of "license": permission to do that which is otherwise illegal.
Where does that put your marriage license, driver's license, license to breed, dog license, hunting license, fishing license, trade license (electricians, plumbers, doctors, etc.)?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Where does that put them? I'm not sure of your question.

Needless to say, a 'breeding license' would simply give authorization or permission. Maybe it isn't needless to say. But I think we can figure that we can't STOP people from having children, but with a license you have the permission of the state and get benefits from the state. For one you get an education and secondly, you can be eligible for government assistance for child care if you need it.

It's not illegal to live together, but you don't get the benefits of marriage unless you get a license.

We once had a non-licensed worker build a wall on our property. We took certain risks by choosing to do that. It wasn't illegal for him to do it, it's just that since he wasn't licensed, we'd have a hard time suing him if it fell down.

Other definitions of the word license include:



a legal document giving official permission to do something.
the act of giving a formal (usually written) authorization



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Formal authorization to breed? Lord help us!

I think the point I'm trying to get across is that despite all the problems with welfare mentalities, overpopulation, hunger worldwide, putting a mortgage on the products of my labor to support your deadbeats, etc. (you/your being general not personal); looking to the state as parental figures to show us right from wrong is a mistake. Look at the outrage that arose over abortion. "My body, my choice!" was the rallying cry. But somehow we forget that when we say "my body, the government's choice". A right is not a privilege. A privilege can be granted or taken away by an authoritarian body. A right is innate/inherent in what is granted to human beings by the virtue of being human beings. To transfer OUR authority to the state or any self-proclaimed authoritarian body in ANY aspect of our lives is to deny our own humanity and forfeit our own power and responsibility.
No license to breed, whether it is to exclude homosexuals from gaining legally sanctioned (and legally governed) marital status or whether it applies to the homeless bag lady with her shopping cart, can be recognized as celebrating our humanity. It can only be seen as the scolding of recalcitrant children (ie: adult U.S. citizens) by an authoritarian parental figure (the state) as having the RIGHT to exert authority over its citizens. No way I'm supporting this one.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I wouldn't support it either. I'm all for personal liberties. I was just debating for the sake of it. I said that back a ways, but I'm not sure everyone saw it. I sometimes like to debate issues that I know will never happen. I do wish people would take more responsibility and be better parents, but it's unrealistic to try to "make" them.


Thanks for the debate!



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
yeah, I saw your earlier qualifying statement earlier, BH, and I too like to play devil's advocate sometimes just to get people thinking but you are a respected and prolific poster and may underestimate the weight of your words and opinions. I do not. And while I do not attack you personally (too much respect), I do persist in attacking any ideologies that counter personal responsibility and individual liberty (libertarian at heart). I've spend 30+ years trying to battle our loss of freedoms-the battle which begins in our minds-from the wal-mart greeter who insists on checking my receipt against what's actually in my bag to the airport security people insisting I leave my bottled water behind. I pounce on every opportunity to point out how our individual laziness is costing us individual liberties. No hard feelings. Thanks for the input. Always appreciate your posts.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join