License to have children?

[Brian2]

I've been partial to this before but not now - it's basically eugenics. It's not for any human to decide who is worthy of existence. We have dignity beyond financial and health problems.

Isn't eugenics practised at times when abortions are performed because of defects in the child.
One the one hand we are against any form of eugenics and promote the abilities of disabled people and on the other it is allowed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't eugenics practised at times when abortions are performed because of defects in the child.
One the one hand we are against any form of eugenics and promote the abilities of disabled people and on the other it is allowed.

No, that is done because the fetus will die soon after being born and rather painfully usually. That is not eugenics. That is compassion.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I know it'd be difficult to get society to agree to it, but how would you feel about the idea of enforcing a law for people to require a license to have children?

This would ensure two things:

1) Population control. - If we limit the right to have children to responsible people, it would help prevent human overpopulation. The population growth would likely still be on the up rise, but at least it'd be more in control.

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Those that have children without having a license, unfortunately, would have their child taken away to adoption. If they want a child, they should work to get that license in the first place. And if there was something preventing them from getting that license, maybe they should've thought more about if having a child would've been a good idea in the first place.

I feel: no
U.K. nhs offers parents ante- and postnatal classes. That’s good. Nurseries and schools keep an eye on children’s well-being. That’s good too. Any more than that and we’re soon asked to consider enforced sterilisation of the “unsuitable” (Sweden had this until 1975 btw, so it’s not unthinkable).

Humbly
Hermit

 

[PureX]

It won't happen because poor people's babies grow up to be cheap labor for the rich people's babies. The more of them there are, the cheaper they are. The parasite class want lots of laborers to sustain them. And they don't care if the laborers are suffering because there are too many of them and not enough resources to go around. Suffering is their purpose, so the parasites don't have to.

 

[Heyo]

I take a "let's wait and see if evolution can naturally handle it" approach to population control.

It will, it always has. Take yeast in a sugar solution. It will double every 20 minutes until either there is no more sugar or too much alcohol. And then all the yeast will die in a short period. That's how evolution handles that.

 

[Koldo]

I know it'd be difficult to get society to agree to it, but how would you feel about the idea of enforcing a law for people to require a license to have children?

This would ensure two things:

1) Population control. - If we limit the right to have children to responsible people, it would help prevent human overpopulation. The population growth would likely still be on the up rise, but at least it'd be more in control.

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Those that have children without having a license, unfortunately, would have their child taken away to adoption. If they want a child, they should work to get that license in the first place. And if there was something preventing them from getting that license, maybe they should've thought more about if having a child would've been a good idea in the first place.

As far as population control goes there is a much simpler, and more elegant, and more effective way to handle it. Generally poor people, reaaally poor people, are the ones breeding like rabbits at this day and age.

So here's how to handle that: after they have their first child, offer money in exchange for sterelization. In other words, create the right incentive.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I know it'd be difficult to get society to agree to it, but how would you feel about the idea of enforcing a law for people to require a license to have children?

This would ensure two things:

1) Population control. - If we limit the right to have children to responsible people, it would help prevent human overpopulation. The population growth would likely still be on the up rise, but at least it'd be more in control.

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Those that have children without having a license, unfortunately, would have their child taken away to adoption. If they want a child, they should work to get that license in the first place. And if there was something preventing them from getting that license, maybe they should've thought more about if having a child would've been a good idea in the first place.

Not a good idea. You can't license the act of procreation.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Alright, alright. I was just spitballing but y’all convinced me this idea wouldn’t work. (Holds up white flag)

 

[VoidCat]

Alright, alright. I was just spitballing but y’all convinced me this idea wouldn’t work. (Holds up white flag)

Hey im sympathic to the idea. I come from a traumatic childhood. I get the wish for there to be a way for folk to make sure those who'd harm kids wouldn't raise them. I just see too many problems with the idea.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Hey im sympathic to the idea. I come from a traumatoc childhood. I get the wish for there to be a way for folk to make sure those who'd harm kids wouldn't raise them. I just see too many problems with the idea.

That and the movie idiocracy… like I feel like the more responsible people will have less children and people who are careless will have one after the ither, our evolutionary course goes towards a population of apathetic and neglected children. Either that or there’ll be branches, like in The Time Machine

 

[Nimos]

What do you think should be a requirement to get that license? I think the first requirement should be to be married. That would certainly reduce the number of children from unwed mothers who are having to raise children alone. I think children need two parents, a father and a mother.

Seeing there we would already have an issue

Being married doesn't make one a good parent unless you honestly believe that atheists who in many cases ain't married are worse than them? Also, married people get divorced for whatever reason, so wouldn't that be a demonstration of the failure of the initial assumption that being married ought to be a requirement?

What about a homosexual couple, is there any documentation that they are worse parents than a standard couple?

Something like this (the general idea) would end in complete chaos and civil war, with people disagreeing

 

[loverofhumanity]

I know it'd be difficult to get society to agree to it, but how would you feel about the idea of enforcing a law for people to require a license to have children?

This would ensure two things:

1) Population control. - If we limit the right to have children to responsible people, it would help prevent human overpopulation. The population growth would likely still be on the up rise, but at least it'd be more in control.

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Those that have children without having a license, unfortunately, would have their child taken away to adoption. If they want a child, they should work to get that license in the first place. And if there was something preventing them from getting that license, maybe they should've thought more about if having a child would've been a good idea in the first place.

I think parental education at an early age might be more effective because as an adopted child my would be step father was vetted and got custody of me only for me to be sexually abused by his brother my step uncle. I think a better way to go is to educate children into virtuous adults because in my case the vetting let slip through the net a very dangerous predator. So I see the answer in education not so much a formal piece of paper that can’t expose hidden ulterior motives until it’s too late.

 

[Nimos]

That and the movie idiocracy… like I feel like the more responsible people will have less children

That is an interesting movie.

The problem is to define what a responsible person is, people in Niger that have 7 children on average are not necessarily irresponsible.

Niger's population challenges are compounded by the prevalence of a conservative strain of Islam, which encourages followers to have as many children as possible. Any organisation working to put contraceptives into the hands of women has the dilemma of doing so in a way that doesn't provoke religious backlash.


From unicef:
The early years for children are especially vulnerable. Maternal mortality is high, with 1 in 187 women dying during pregnancy, childbirth or after delivery. Very high levels of acute and chronic malnutrition, low access to safe drinking water and high rates of open defecation threaten the survival of young children whose immune systems are still developing.

The best investment for a child’s future is to invest in the early years of their lives, through education. But in Niger, many children miss out on this vital opportunity. Only 8 per cent are enrolled in pre-schools nationally, with large gaps between rural (4 per cent) and urban (28 per cent) children.

So who are you going to blame here? the individual or the religious nonsense that pulls the strings or one of the probably 100s of other things that plays a part in it?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Licenced births is a stupid and badly thought out concept.

However the world population is constantly growing without any real hope of control.

The whole financial, political and business world. Is based on constant growth and ever increasing population.
Sustainability requires the reverse to be true.

 

[Heyo]

The problem is to define what a responsible person is, people in Niger that have 7 children on average are not necessarily irresponsible.

I don't have the numbers but my guess is that one child in the western world has a bigger ecological footprint than 7 children in Niger.

 

[Estro Felino]

It won't happen because poor people's babies grow up to be cheap labor for the rich people's babies. The parasites want lots of hosts to sustain them. And they don't care if the hosts are suffering because there are too many of them.

It's a vicious cycle...I guess...because the more people are on Earth, the more you need to slave away to produce the resources to support those people.
With 7 billion people less on Earth, the rich capitalists are powerless, because there's no cheap labor to exploit any more...and the demand is so tiny, that their insatiable greed for money remains unsatisfied.

 

[PureX]

It's a vicious cycle...I guess...because the more people are on Earth, the more you need to slave away to produce the resources to support those people.
With 7 billion people less on Earth, the rich capitalists are powerless, because there's no cheap labor to exploit any more...and the demand is so tiny, that their insatiable greed for money remains unsatisfied.

Fewer of us means more for everyone. And a healthier planet, too. But the greedy parasites among us want it all for themselves. Sharing is not on their agenda. More people means more people to exploit, and more workers to help them exploit the planet.

 

[Estro Felino]

Fewer of us means more for everyone. And a healthier planet, too. But the greedy parasites among us want it all for themselves. Sharing is not on their agenda. More people means more people to exploit, and more workers to help them exploit the planet.

That's why I believe that they benefit from overpopulation, because the stock of slaves gets bigger and bigger.

 

[wellwisher]

I know it'd be difficult to get society to agree to it, but how would you feel about the idea of enforcing a law for people to require a license to have children?

This would ensure two things:

1) Population control. - If we limit the right to have children to responsible people, it would help prevent human overpopulation. The population growth would likely still be on the up rise, but at least it'd be more in control.

2) Better parenting. - In order to obtain a license, the parents would have to prove themselves responsible to have a child. They would have to prove that they would be suitable parents to raise a child, beneficial to the child's upbringing and mental health. Creates a better life for the child, and in turn it creates a better adult, and in turn of that it creates a better society full of better adults.

Those that have children without having a license, unfortunately, would have their child taken away to adoption. If they want a child, they should work to get that license in the first place. And if there was something preventing them from getting that license, maybe they should've thought more about if having a child would've been a good idea in the first place.

What about a license for abortion? Would an abortion license disqualify you from having a child, since you previously killed a potential child? I would be concerned for potential future children. Maternal instinct does not kill her unborn or born, with good maternal instinct important to child development.

Would an abortion license come with sterilization, to avoid such people from driving without a parent license, since abortion is often needed due to being a little too carefree and spontaneous. It could make a child without a license, by accident. How would both license work together? These are tricky questions that would need to be balanced.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't have the numbers but my guess is that one child in the western world has a bigger ecological footprint than 7 children in Niger.

Probably far more as they have a far higher chance of surviving their childhood in the west.