I am not sure a permit is the way to go because that is a slippery slope when you start doing that.

Something sure needs to be done.

People who can't support and raise the kids they have are a drain on society and shouldn't expect others to pay for their kids through social entitlement programs.

It's your right to have kids but you should be smart enough and responsible enough not to if you can't raise them yourself!

Originally posted by Maslo
Procreation is not a personal right, it is an interpersonal, public right that deeply affects another unconsenting innocent person and society in general. I dont think there should be a permit, but procreation is one of those things that is theoretically conductive for government regulation.

Expand this...I am curious. Procreation existed before government or any form of "society" or "community" existed, so I am not sure how you can say it isn't a right, as a human being.

But I am more curious in how you see it to be theoretically conductive for government regulation. We are here to learn and expand so don't take this as a jab. I am genuinely curious to your thoughts on this.

perhaps they should all be controlled births. otherwise we get politicians who are so selfish its unbelievable. and all the other selfish morons. on the other hand, perhaps man is an unwanted plague on the planet. should all parents be drowned at birth?
who is going to decide who gets born and who is sterilized? it all looks messy at the moment, with mans unconscious cruelty to his fellow man for example american govt with their drone strikes, zionist abuse of palistinians, the list goes on and on.
but 1 day this will all cease and the sun will really shine.

good god NO

but it would be nice if our society viewed early child raising as more like an "it takes a village" approach and these struggling families weren't left between courts and poverty and shame

I'm all for this. At least limit having kids to 3 tops and that's it.

The poor should especially be limited to 1 or 2 tops.

It's all coming down the pipeline anyway, with designer babies being genetically modified and what not

Originally posted by dominicus
I'm all for this. At least limit having kids to 3 tops and that's it.

The poor should especially be limited to 1 or 2 tops.

It's all coming down the pipeline anyway, with designer babies being genetically modified and what not

Why? What makes one "poor"? Governmental standards? Come on people you have thoughts, expound on them. Use some critical thinking. If this is your stance, explain why it is.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Expand this...I am curious. Procreation existed before government or any form of "society" or "community" existed, so I am not sure how you can say it isn't a right, as a human being.

I don't want to answer for someone else but I see the logic in your question and agree with you to a large extent. The human drive to procreate is a biological one and a rather strong one as well; it is a fundamental right that existed long before the advent of government.

However, when it was simply a human right and practiced by individuals or family groups the exercise of that right did not infringe on the rights of other humans, family groups or even other tribes with an organized structure of laws by draining their resources to support the offspring of those who could not support their own.

The support, rearing and security of the offspring were the sole responsibility of the pair who chose to create new life. Certainly, there were cases of in which charity and human decency resulted in individuals, pairs, groups or even tribal governments providing aid to aid women/children who lost their husbands in war or to accidents or even in cases where a woman has been left to fend for herself and raise offspring alone.

The difference is that this was largely voluntary - also I'd wager that it was not infinite and open ended and largely contingent on the understanding that further procreation or failure to provide some contribution to society would end the arrangement.

When it was a simple right a mated pair could procreate as they wished for sure; however, they could not expect or demand support in the way of food, shelter or clothing for their offspring from other individuals, mated pairs or groups...

In modern society that is no longer the case a mated pair or even a single mother can pretty much make the unilateral decision to procreate absent any deliberation or consideration on their ability/means to support their offspring. They act selfishly and independently but then they can expect to receive almost unlimited aid taken by force from others (through taxation) to mitigate their poor decision to mate and create offspring for whom they cannot provide the basic necessities - food, shelter and clothing.

This is when it ceases to be a basic human right as the old saying goes one person's rights stop where another person’s begin.

Why should people who make good decisions, delay mating and procreation until they have the emotional and financial means to properly raise and provide for their offspring have their resources seized by force to provide for those who clearly have not done the same? So now those who have saved and planned well so they had the means to support their own children have that ability reduced must involuntarily support the unplanned and illegitimate offspring of others.

This doesn't seem quite like a simple human right any more. It is a decision made by one or two people that severely infringes on the rights of the rest of us to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If it were a basic human right no one could expect that their inability to support their own offspring would fall to others.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
But I am more curious in how you see it to be theoretically conductive for government regulation. We are here to learn and expand so don't take this as a jab. I am genuinely curious to your thoughts on this.

I personally don't want government regulation of the right to procreate. However, in the same regard I do not want the government to collect taxes and manage programs to assist and aid individuals who have offspring they cannot support.

I am not heartless - people make mistakes; perhaps a onetime leg up program for teens who make a bad decision or a couple who falls on hard times, or a family who loses a bread winner. However, that aid should come with some significant restrictions and very, very supervised circumstances not the least of which would be mandatory temporary prohibition on further procreation until the current situation is rectified.

If we are going to have a role for the government to help people it should be harder to get, more strictly monitored and certainly come with strings like mandatory birth control until the person/pair become self sufficient.

That is my position.

Again, not answering for Maslo just the question was too interesting to not comment.

Wow wrong thread...oops.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by dominicus
I'm all for this. At least limit having kids to 3 tops and that's it.

The poor should especially be limited to 1 or 2 tops.

It's all coming down the pipeline anyway, with designer babies being genetically modified and what not

Why? What makes one "poor"? Governmental standards? Come on people you have thoughts, expound on them. Use some critical thinking. If this is your stance, explain why it is.

I grew up around Chicago, and was in and out of various classes and neighborhoods.

I had friends who's parents owned/still own, multi-million dollar companies, friends with Ronald Regan, mansions, etc. Middle class friends, and the dirt poorest of poor. I noticed that the richest and most educated, usually stayed within the 2 to 3 kid range. Middle class has around the same amount, but the poor goes overboard with kids.

The kids born into poverty, many times get stuck in that class and mentality, and recreate the cycle of gov't cheese handouts with large numbers of kids. Most of he time, the fathers aren't there to help raise the kids. I have polls and demographic statistics that also back what I witnessed in my life.

Going deeper into philosophical musings, it has to do with lust and animal instincts, which run rampant and wild with procreation the poorer and less educated a person, city, state, country gets. You can go deeper into stats and find the correlation between dumber & poorer = more kids.

The smarter countries taper off/slow down. The dumber poorer countries procreate like rabbits. Personally, being an educated person, I've relied heavily on birth control and always held serious discussion in terms of bringing a child into the world and the psychological, physical, and financial obligations associated with this.

A poor stupid person just gets their rocks off and does not consider any ramifications.

First off, thank you for the reply. It really was an honest question and they are hard to come by here that isn't attached to some baiting. On that note, I will engage in discussion and that may lead to disagreement on some part.

Originally posted by dominicus
I grew up around Chicago, and was in and out of various classes and neighborhoods.

I had friends who's parents owned/still own, multi-million dollar companies, friends with Ronald Regan, mansions, etc. Middle class friends, and the dirt poorest of poor. I noticed that the richest and most educated, usually stayed within the 2 to 3 kid range. Middle class has around the same amount, but the poor goes overboard with kids.

This is the notion I am trying to narrow down. I understand your statement above because it can be seen in cities, towns, and communities outside of your known area, but what exactly is "overboard"?

I agree with exception though; it isn't just the "poor" who are going "overboard". People, regardless of class, stature, or lot in life, make stupid decision. Those decisions lead sometimes, to a life they cannot sustain without assistance, such as one or two many children being born into the world.

Given that, what would we identify as the underlying cause that may lead to such brazen breeding, with no fear of consequence from either State or community? Moral fabric? Political correctness? Utopian ideals?

The kids born into poverty, many times get stuck in that class and mentality, and recreate the cycle of gov't cheese handouts with large numbers of kids. Most of he time, the fathers aren't there to help raise the kids. I have polls and demographic statistics that also back what I witnessed in my life.

While I think you painted with a broad brush, it is evident if one actually goes and sees for themselves that such is happening; even outside of the polls and statistics. It is indeed a cause to the effect.

Going deeper into philosophical musings, it has to do with lust and animal instincts, which run rampant and wild with procreation the poorer and less educated a person, city, state, country gets. You can go deeper into stats and find the correlation between dumber & poorer = more kids.

Just poorer and lessor educated individuals experience such "lust" and "animal instincts"? Move away from the statistics, especially if we are going to delve deeper into the philosophical musings of the situation.

The smarter countries taper off/slow down. The dumber poorer countries procreate like rabbits. Personally, being an educated person, I've relied heavily on birth control and always held serious discussion in terms of bringing a child into the world and the psychological, physical, and financial obligations associated with this.

Is it education solely or possible something else; since we are waxing philosophy here. Could it be a deeper sense of responsibility to oneself that drives you to be more mindful?

A poor stupid person just gets their rocks off and does not consider any ramifications.

Too vague and broad I believe. What has changed in say the past 200 years where some families, with little means, had upwards of 6-10 children (granted not all lived)? If the "poor" farmer side of my family did not procreate, there could be a good chance that I would not be engaging in this conversation with you at this moment of time. Most likely and statistically, the same could be said of you or any other poster here.

Originally posted by Chai_An

Originally posted by Endure
Seriously, this makes me ill. I stopped reading after about the 50th repetition of "for a better society". I am the person this kind of thing would have targeted. I had 3 children, when I was very poor with no real way to take care of them. I worked my ass off, leaned on family for help and 20 years later, my 3 boys are a wonderful contribution to society. Everyone who has ever met them agree. How would it be a "better society" to have banned them from existing? The world is insane, people are lining up to throw their freedoms away for "a better society". How many times do we have to see an empire go this route with horrifying results before we stop even going there?

You made a very good example thank you for sharing. All this "for a better society" stuff sound like something from A Brave New World or 1984, a society of unemotional people who make no decisions of their own.

edit on 27-2-2013 by Chai_An because: (no reason given)

No her example was not good because the OP does not state anything about restricting the poor from having babies. You can be poor and still raise great kids. Now was she on drugs then that would be an issue.

I know this will make quite a few people groan, and I don't have any data to show how prevalent this kind of thing is, but sometimes a family's religious beliefs create and then exacerbate these kinds of problems.

In the town I grew up in, there was a devout Christian family (2 kids, around my age) that was struggling so our local church decided to help them out. Through the pooling of some donations (both cash and some property) they were set up with a pretty decent house, plus a little bit extra.

As I got older, they had another kid. And another. I'm not talking about years passing in between each birth, I mean just about every 9 months mom was cranking out another kid. At first it was no big deal, each new addition was treated as a blessing. It didn't take very long though before this pattern started getting old, and by the time I was in high school they had 8 kids with another on the way.

Where was the guidance from the church community for these parents? Contraception - unthinkable. Abstinance - well, 1 Corinthians 7 answers that question. I'm not even going to mention the "A" word. Yet the charity (and gov't assistance, no there was no turning any of that down) kept flowing, year after year, and it came as no surprise when members of the community started to HATE this family and some of our more colorful residents started giving them #. Giving their kids # in school, even though it wasn't their fault.

In the end, I moved away after graduation, the oldest from the family enlisted in the service, and I lost track of what happened with them but I can't help but think it wasn't pretty.

Now, I know I'm not supposed to throw stones from my glass house or anything, but clearly there is something wrong with this picture. You either stick to your convictions and deal with the consequences (and try to refrain from bitching about it) or you apply some tough love, something that they pretty much evaded at every possible turn.

(Not to bait anyone, but just to provide the complete picture here so take it at face value - it was a white community.)

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation

Originally posted by Chai_An

Originally posted by Endure
Seriously, this makes me ill. I stopped reading after about the 50th repetition of "for a better society". I am the person this kind of thing would have targeted. I had 3 children, when I was very poor with no real way to take care of them. I worked my ass off, leaned on family for help and 20 years later, my 3 boys are a wonderful contribution to society. Everyone who has ever met them agree. How would it be a "better society" to have banned them from existing? The world is insane, people are lining up to throw their freedoms away for "a better society". How many times do we have to see an empire go this route with horrifying results before we stop even going there?

You made a very good example thank you for sharing. All this "for a better society" stuff sound like something from A Brave New World or 1984, a society of unemotional people who make no decisions of their own.

edit on 27-2-2013 by Chai_An because: (no reason given)

No her example was not good because the OP does not state anything about restricting the poor from having babies. You can be poor and still raise great kids. Now was she on drugs then that would be an issue.

It may not have been a good example for you but it was for me. The OP may not have made mention of the poor but when governments start legislating a natural act such as becoming parents it'll eventually be stipulations leading to no one poor.