License to have children

clicked 'reply' before I finished post properly, then lost the lot in edit

cba to type it again so please disregard.

First, in order to go along with this poorly thought out strategy, one must agree that rights are not universal and unalienable and are instead some form of malleable concept subject to the whimsy of...well, subject to the whimsy of people like many in this thread. Without any regard for even the words these whimsical posters are publishing, so many members are intent on making an abundance of illogical arguments steeped in fallaciousness. Indeed, one member actually began their post affirming the consequent, or making an argument of converse error by declaring that he agrees with the O.P. but he is not "big government-y" thus - in his world of perfect fallacy - licensing parents is not big government, only to turn around and predict that those who disagree with his own fallacious reasoning will be relying on logical fallacies themselves.

Another member pretends to have a heart and point to the horrid circumstances some children go through as wards of the state, declaring that we cannot turn our backs on these children and make excuses such as "it's not my problem", only to turn around and make the argument that it would be better if these children were not born at all! Apparently if we can prevent the births of children who will only have to live a life of suffering at the hands of the very state of whom all are advocating implement a parental licensing scheme, we will not be turning our backs on them and will not have to justify it by declaring "its not my problem" because they will not exist - these children - to turn our backs on them and there will be no need to declare "it's not my problem" because...well, because it really won't be our problem and who recognizes problems they don't have, right?

The poster who relied upon converse error before lecturing everyone else on logical fallacies pointed to the "slippery slope" argument as an example of a fallacy, but so many are making the argument that because some children are a drain on the resources, i.e. socialist programs paid for through taxation, that prohibition of parenting is necessary and clearly what they are describing is a slippery slope long since slid upon and now using that slippery slope as justification for yet one more denial and disparagement of a right.

Round and round these squawking hens and roosters cluck and strut patting themselves on their backs for so deftly fooling themselves into believing they're the smart ones who should decide which of the stupid people shouldn't be parents...as if they're actually smart enough to escape the very oppression they advocate...oh wait...they're not for oppression, but they are for parental prohibition, ergo prohibiting certain people from having children is not oppressive...

Sigh.

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard


I have been advocating this for a long time. Our planet can't hold 6 billion people, let alone 4 billion. I'm not much for big government but some sort of system needs to be set up in order to reduce the number of births that occur. I believe we need a 2 birth limit replacing the 2 individuals and fine the people who break this limits. I don't understand why we reward people who are purposefully destroying our planet.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes, you should pat yourself on the back for such a witty post describing how stupid the rest of us are.

It's just a discussion forum dude, chill out. We're just discussing. Nobody's going to do anything. We're not going to change the status quo you are so fond of. We're not actually taking away anyone's right to have children. So, all these people can have all the kids they want. And when they eventually kill them or their kids get taken into protective custody, they'll just make more. It's all good.

www.wtvq.com...

www.parenting-child-development.com...

www.reuters.com...

www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard

What I think should happen is (for example) temporary castration at birth. Then if you want kids later in life you apply for a license to have your castration reversed.

Show me any evidence that "castration" as you call can be reversed......
This is what I think of this thread of yours


You are out of your mind to even think that this is an okay thought process........

reply to post by kaylaluv


Sure, it is just a discussion board...the "status quo" if you will. It is precisely the "status quo" that I am not fond of, and am fond of my unalienable rights so reviled by the status quo you pretend to have nothing to do with.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Sure, it is just a discussion board...the "status quo" if you will. It is precisely the "status quo" that I am not fond of, and am fond of my unalienable rights so reviled by the status quo you pretend to have nothing to do with.

Well, you can be a pedophile, or someone who likes to defecate on your child on a daily basis, or someone who wants to do drugs that make you want to eat a little one's face off. Good news - you can still have a kid. Heck, have 20 of 'em. It makes even that much more fun.

Humans are procreating animals.

To suggest we need a license to do what we're born into this world to do is just insanity.

It's exactly what we do for adoptions. I would be perfectly fine with it. We have to get a license to get married and nobody has a hissie fit about how that violates our rights. In fact, in some states you even have to have a blood test before you can marry. Where is all the outrage?

Also, like an earlier poster, I have long advocated the idea that when anybody goes on welfare, one of the requirements should be mandatory temporary sterilization (i.e. the depo provera shot every 3 months) for the duration of the acceptance of public aid. Once you exit the welfare system, the shot wears off and you are back in the baby making business.

Here's a shocker for you... We already have requirements for public aid, such as if you are on the WIC (Women, Infants, Children) public assistance, you are required to bring your baby in to the County health dept for weigh-ins, immunizations, etc. I see absolutely no difference. What if you don't want to immunize your child because you think it will make the kid autistic? Well, that's your choice, but you won't be getting free food and diapers from WIC. Choices and their consequences... What a concept.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Oh sure, you're only advocating this form of oppression because of the epidemic of parental pedophilia and parental face eating problems that exist in the world today. Disconnect with reality in order to advocate a real world governmental policy is hardly an act of erudition, but you're not advocating that only the erudite have children, are you? Only that we license all of those numerous parental pedophiles and face eaters.

You may have a right to have children, or do any other thing that you want to.....
BUT....
Any or all those rights END when they encroach on someone else's rights.

We have a right to spend our money as we want to. No one has a right to demand that you pay his expenses or the cost of raising his children. That is exactly where his right to have children Ends. He's poor- therefore no right to have children.

The poor would not be so poor if they did not have children.

Common sense, isn't it?

All you naysayers tell me - why do we need more poor people?

Education you say.....well everyone in civilized countries has the opportunity to go to school.
So why don't they?
And just what kind of education did you have in mind for them?
High school diploma? I that sufficient to make them realize that a lot of children isn't for them?
College? Do they even have the motivation to complete high school?

And just what would a college education do for them?
You want them all to become White Collar workers?
Who then would pick up the trash; do the shovel work on construction sites; drive delivery trucks etc.?

reply to post by OhZone

We have a right to spend our money as we want to.

This bit of collectivist dribble follows the declaration that rights end the moment they infringe upon other people's rights and without a hint of irony. Do you declare that you as an individual have the right spend your money as you want to? Hell no! You declare the "we" this collective has the right to do that. Why is this?

I'm all for it! Also, please include the concept of the parents not being below a certain IQ level. I'm sick of idiots breeding.

Statements like the ops are why I don't believe charity would work as opposed to taxation for social programs.

The poor get so little already, but it is assumed to be so much - and it is begrudged to the point of wanting to castrate them for it? Or, if it were up to me, they'd only get rice and beans!

I can only think that people that would have these sorts of opinions are not that charitable, and I see a lot of it.

Originally posted by hadriana
Statements like the ops are why I don't believe charity would work as opposed to taxation for social programs.

The poor get so little already, but it is assumed to be so much - and it is begrudged to the point of wanting to castrate them for it? Or, if it were up to me, they'd only get rice and beans!

I can only think that people that would have these sorts of opinions are not that charitable, and I see a lot of it.

You know my friend, it is an ironic statement you make, acknowledging that the state "welfare" programs imposed upon people, including modern charities, is better than good old fashioned charity because the state "welfare" programs funded by tax dollars generates a hatred for the poor. Some how you believe this logic justifies the very socialist state you acknowledge is now engendering hatred for the poor.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by OhZone

 

We have a right to spend our money as we want to.

This bit of collectivist dribble follows the declaration that rights end the moment they infringe upon other people's rights and without a hint of irony. Do you declare that you as an individual have the right spend your money as you want to? Hell no! You declare the "we" this collective has the right to do that. Why is this?

I did mean we as individuals, and I think that should be evident.
Is that they only argument you have with my post?

The problem is who decides whether or not can have kids and who sets the guidelines? You can't have others deciding basic human rights of the people. There maybe good intentions at first but the road to Hell is paved with good intent. Now if someone goes to the government for assistance, then birth control needs to be a condition to qualify. It becomes a free will choice then.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's a quagmire we're in, and it's only going to go down.
I am NOT a socialist - I get accused of it a great deal on ATS, simply because I am more concerned for the poor than for ANY political or religious ideology. (Because religious institutions often encourage a lot of children to be born that people maybe would not even WANT if they were free to feel no guilt about not doing it.)

IMO, all those ideologies have to be termpered and FAIR or they become a noose, because I think that organizationally led thought is not the best way to think.

I don't like the class warfare going on. I do see it. I don't know what the answer is if I look to socialist or capitalist - but I do see an answer in being fair minded to all, and a bit more nonjudgemental of others than what I keep seeing come out of topics like this.

Greed is a big problem. MINE MINE MINE you get yours this is MINE

On some level though, we all get ours TOGETHER.

I've always believed that being successful involves also helping others to be successful as well.

I knew a guy once, with an autoparts shop. He was really concerned when a competitor opened up right across from him. But the DAY his competitor had a grand opening sale, it was his best day ever. He found that his business only went UP having the other guy so close.

Taxes suck, but I'd rather mine go to the poor than to agencies that keep people from starting businesses and being as free as they could be.

Maybe I don't make sense. But I don't think begrudging the poor is going to help any of us, with 40% of the wealth in America gone, any one of us could be poor tomorrow. I'm not into cutting off my own nose to spite my face.

reply to post by OhZone

I did mean we as individuals, and I think that should be evident.
Is that they only argument you have with my post?

"We as individuals" is still "we". Your entire post, which reads like a "kill the poor" screed, is clearly you as an individual seeking to find allegiance in some "we" declaring that poor people would not be so poor if they didn't have children.

You laughingly call this common sense, as if the rich with children would be richer if they just didn't have children, as if it is all perfectly logical in your fallacious world. All of this nonsense follows the declaration that rights end the moment they deny another persons rights but you are all for denying the poor person the right to have children, and how do you justify this? Can you justify this, or will you just whimsically declare that having children is not a right?

reply to post by hadriana

Taxes suck, but I'd rather mine go to the poor than to agencies that keep people from starting businesses and being as free as they could be.

Taxes are supposed to exist solely to keep a government functioning, and a government does not need to engage in wealth redistribution in order to function, and demonstrably functions worse when it does.