Jump to content

license to have children?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Even if it could be enforced, it would prompt pregnant women that didn't obtain permission to possibly not even see a doctor, for fear of getting in trouble. It would lead to complications and deaths, causing a larger burden on society overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shouldn't discuss if there must be a license for having children. Instead we should discuss what's the background of this discussion, why do we need to discuss this? I mean, humanity successfully raised children for several thousand years and suddenly over a few decades most parents don't seem to be up to the task.

 

What's the matter for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a denial of a human right in itself to have a license to have children. However - I think if parents who keep breeding, having 6 or more children, should be banned from sponging the maximum off the government at the expense of the tax payer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some countries did or still do have laws about how many children you can have. I'd be inclined to say that's more likely to catch on than flat out refusing to let some people have kids, although you only have to watch a few programs about 'real life' families these days to wish such a thing were possible.

 

I was watching a program about childbirth recently. They had a massive variety of women talking about and showing video of their experiences and one was definitely a working class (except not working, on benefits) mother of four, who was having her fifth. In her video she said she was going to get her husband to have a vasectomy, but then she thought since her mother comes from a family of 11, she'd like to aim higher. You just know half that family is claiming benefits. What a drain on society. But it's a circle - they have kids, their kids grow up with their non-working, common-as-muck parents as their example, and they go on to have their own kids and raise them the same way.

 

The problem is, this way of life is sustainable over here because of our benefits system. A couple with 4-5 kids who aren't working can realistically be getting more per year from our support system than a regular working couple with no kids. There's no incentive to get a job and earn a living. I have a friend who is constantly downhearted by the fact that she works 40+ hours a week in a skilled position and lives in a tiny flat in a terrible area, and yet she has friends who are unemployed with several kids who spend all the day at the pub and have a lovely little council house to themselves. I know people who've lied about their relationship status because single mothers get houses given to them faster than couples.

 

If people weren't allowed to have so many children then not so many would be able to abuse the system like this. Or even if it were a case of - you get benefits and support for your first two children, then you pay for any more you have yourself. That might stop people basically spending their lives living off other peoples taxes.

 

It'll never happen. We're too liberal over here, and there are far too many problems with the idea and execution of it. But as someone who knows I'll probably never be able to afford to have more than 2 children max, and yet come from a good background and would be a good mother, it's irritating to see people who are frankly awful parents popping them out all over the place without a care in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Variations on limitations on who and how many children has already happened, is happening now, and will happen more in the future.

 

Eugenics? Alive and well.

 

To me it's not a matter of whether or not these decisions are being made, but by who and with what intentions?

 

Why would it be a good idea? Number One reason: the planet is facing overpopulation. That is a real fact. And the numbers are continuing to grow.

 

Plenty of other reasons why we need to consider this. Everything from economic to legal.

 

Even here in Canada, we have had eugenics in action for a long time. In the special needs community for one example: there are many living reminders of a legal system and popular mentality that supported the sterilization of people. To this day; debate rages in that particular community.

 

Eugenics doesn't have to be a dirty word - though because of past horrors, it's gotten a real bad connotation to it.

 

I think it's important to get past the initial gut revulsion to ideas about controlled parenthood. Remember not that long ago, the same revulsion was being greeted towards contraception. At various times, people have committed infanticide.

 

And in the present, we make decisions about who is born every day from the smallest thing to the large, we just don't always think about it. Designer babies, anyone? Selective abortion?

 

I think it's an important topic. I'm not gung-ho about the idea of licenses because I think it needs a lot of discussing, work, and there will be room there for plenty of horrors and ways of selectively preventing certain sectors of people while encouraging others (be it social, cultural, economic difference, etc.).

But I think all the possibilities need to be considered. It's a global issue now. We can't ignore it and keep doing what we have always done; that is an almost guaranteed recipe for disaster and unwanted consequences that we don't even take responsibility for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have the law about pets. But yes I think we should need licence for both.

 

Theres a lot of people in the UK, that abuse the benifit system. Staying at home, popping kids out for more and more money. It's a shame to see all those children, knowing they don't have much hope in life =(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very good opinions, I guess my view, is that I see so many children who are living a terrible and miserable life because they were born to parents that just don't care. And I think its heartbreaking. I know there are already situations in place to take a child from his home if he is being neglected or abused, but once that neglect and abuse happens, it scars him forever. And then imagine these kids grown up, abusing others, and then they accidentally have children. Its having a huge effect on our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you are saying. I also think that the more kids you have, you should not be paid benefits, but you should be paying the government extra taxes instead. And if you can't support your family like that, then shame on you, you shouldn't have had so many kids. In the event that you can't support your kids because of your lack of planning, the younger kids can be adopted by couples that cannot have children and have sufficient means to support the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you feel that people should have to have a license to have children? I mean we need a license to have pets, and you need to have qualifications to adopt a child, so do you feel it should be the same for parents?

 

God, no. What an awful thought. The last thing i want is the government trying to license and control people's reproductive freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, no. What an awful thought. The last thing i want is the government trying to license and control people's reproductive freedom.

 

Yeah they tried that with the mentally challenged here in Alberta at one time and the government I believe got sued years later.

 

When human reproduction comes down to government agendas that is truly disgusting and sad. If I would not allowed to have kids because of some government agenda I would have to become treasonous I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah they tried that with the mentally challenged here in Alberta at one time and the government I believe got sued years later.

 

When human reproduction comes down to government agendas that is truly disgusting and sad. If I would not allowed to have kids because of some government agenda I would have to become treasonous I guess.

 

Well in their defense that sounds more like a social agenda than a government agenda. I believe they probably thought they were doing what is best for the society and the individuals involved, rather than looking for a government surplus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in their defense that sounds more like a social agenda than a government agenda. I believe they probably thought they were doing what is best for the society and the individuals involved, rather than looking for a government surplus.

 

I am not really talking about money though but more the moral issue of the government deciding who can reproduce. Once they do that one particular group it will spread. It is like a kid, you give them a yard they take a mile. All people are like that and governments too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not really talking about money though but more the moral issue of the government deciding who can reproduce. Once they do that one particular group it will spread. It is like a kid, you give them a yard they take a mile. All people are like that and governments too.

 

If it is done in a way that benefits society (morally, economically, socially...) AND this can be proved (keep in mind it may be VERY difficult to prove this) and possibly even voted on, then there could be a case against it. Our rights and privileges end as individuals where another persons rights and privileges begin. It is a discussion on what is fair. You have to think of it from all perspectives. The individual that is being restricted and how the rest of the society ranks the outcome of the decision, and how it affects them. Of course government alone shouldn't be making the decisions without base. That is true for any policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is done in a way that benefits society (morally, economically, socially...) AND this can be proved (keep in mind it may be VERY difficult to prove this) and possibly even voted on, then there could be a case against it. Our rights and privileges end as individuals where another persons rights and privileges begin. It is a discussion on what is fair. You have to think of it from all perspectives. The individual that is being restricted and how the rest of the society ranks the outcome of the decision, and how it affects them. Of course government alone shouldn't be making the decisions without base. That is true for any policy.

 

I think though the government has NO place in telling people whether they can reproduce, there is only one judge of that as far as I am concerned but I know not everyone believes in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some people it does, for me personally for myself, no.

 

This is an abstract problem, but I want your opinion.

 

Lets say there is a society of 100 individuals (a small world with only 100 people). There is one person, and it is known as a fact that if this person has a child, a new disease will be introduced that can and most likely will be spread. Currently this disease does not exist. If the one person wants to have a child should the rest of the 99 not have any say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an abstract problem, but I want your opinion.

 

Lets say there is a society of 100 individuals (a small world with only 100 people). There is one person, and it is known as a fact that if this person has a child, a new disease will be introduced that can and most likely will be spread. Currently this disease does not exist. If the one person wants to have a child should the rest of the 99 not have any say?

 

 

Too bad. They should all leave if they don't want the disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...