Should couples need a license to procreate?

[Spiderman]

Should there be prerequisites to having a child? Would it benefit society if there were?

 

[LuisDantas]

Should there be prerequisites to having a child?

Probably. But making it an actual prohibition or imposition would cause a lot of harm of its own, and should therefore be avoided.

Campaigns for voluntary, careful consideration of the matter (and encouragement of adoption over intentional birth) are probably a better idea for now. People without healthy extended families should probably avoid childraising altogether.

Would it benefit society if there were?

Almost certainly, although it is a thorny matter to handle, mostly because it involves long avoided, painful admissions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. That's giving the State too much power to trample individual freedoms and dignity, and bodily autonomy.

People without healthy extended families should probably avoid childraising altogether.

Why?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not if it can be avoided, but if there is a serious problem it is an option. Suppose Zika became a worldwide menace that could become a recessive inherited genetic trait. Well, yes then testing would be important. It would be cruel not to test in that scenario. We already outlaw marriage between close relatives for similar reasons -- to avoid cruelty.

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted <yes>, but it's an unrealistic fantasy.

I imagine that a licensing exam would be heavy on integral calculus &
differential equations, but no advanced math (which would be unfair).

 

[Brickjectivity]

I voted <yes>, but it's an unrealistic fantasy.

I imagine that a licensing exam would be heavy on integral calculus &
differential equations, but no advanced math (which would be unfair).

Dad: "Susie, what are you doing with that pen and all of that paper?"
Susie: "I'm having a baby!"

 

[Jumi]

Knowing how badly bureaucrats handle most things, this would probably turn out to have biases that aren't useful.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why?

Raising a child is far too much responsibility these days for it to be reasonable to expect a random couple to have the proper means for doing it "by themselves".

It has ever been important to have an extended family to provide not only material and logistical support, but also very necessary alternate adult references for the children. These days I think it has become a full necessity.

 

[Augustus]

Aside from the matter of ethics, the total impracticality of it (what would the punishment be for violating the law?), and the strong likelihood of significant civil unrest, reducing birthrates in the West with an ageing population would be highly problematic.

 

[Stevicus]

Should there be prerequisites to having a child? Would it benefit society if there were?

I voted no, since it infringes on too many human rights. It is tempting, though.

 

[Nakosis]

Should there be prerequisites to having a child? Would it benefit society if there were?

Probably but who gets to decide is going to cause problems. The person or group who makes that decision is going to have a lot of power which they would likely end up abusing. So just can't do it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No. It's impractical fiscally and due to limited resources and manpower. It would end up penalizing the poor, who have less access to birth control methods and biases for rich = stable could make it a beurocratic nightmare.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What would be a fair and accurate criteria for filtering potential parents? What would such a scheme be trying to prevent?

 

[LuisDantas]

What would be a fair and accurate criteria for filtering potential parents?

Some form of mutual commitment with others, I think.

What would such a scheme be trying to prevent?

Parental failure and parental abuse, mainly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dad: "Susie, what are you doing with that pen and all of that paper?"
Susie: "I'm having a baby!"

Or Suzie might've replied.....
"Studying for my foreplay license."

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Should there be prerequisites to having a child? Would it benefit society if there were?

That was the idea behind marriage, methinks.
But the problem is that kids not certified become fair game for abuse.

I would instead suggest that the first kid is free, the second requires the minimal certification,
and the 3rd kid results in heavy taxes to pay for all the problems caused by over-population.

 

[Skwim]

Don't know about a license, but there should be some kind of deterrence for having more than two kids; I mean other than the usual problems that more kids bring.

Other than this it would be nice if there was some way to prevent people with an IQ below 90, say, from being able to procreate.

IQ Range and Classification

140 and over Genius or near genius
120-140 Very superior intelligence
110-120 Superior intelligence
90-110 Normal or average intelligence
80-90 Dullness
70-80 Borderline deficiency
Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness
source

.​

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't know about a license, but there should be some kind of penalty for having more than two kids; I mean other than the usual problems that more kids bring.

Other than this it would be nice if there was some way to prevent people with an IQ below 90, say, from being able to procreate.

IQ Range and Classification

140 and over Genius or near genius
120-140 Very superior intelligence
110-120 Superior intelligence
90-110 Normal or average intelligence
80-90 Dullness
70-80 Borderline deficiency
Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness
source

.​

Rather self-serving to set the min at 90, eh.
Let's make 120 the minimum.

 

[Skwim]

Rather self-serving to set the min at 90, eh.
Let's make 120 the minimum.

Trouble is, because they only make up 10% of the population and most folk with very superior intelligence + often see the folly in having children, I fear our population would plummet to such an extent that eventually there wouldn't be enough people to run the country. Gotta have someone to man the ramparts.

.​

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I voted <yes>, but it's an unrealistic fantasy.

I imagine that a licensing exam would be heavy on integral calculus &
differential equations, but no advanced math (which would be unfair).

Isn't this one of the most massive kinds of governmental intrusion into the lives of private citizens conceivable? Why would you, a libertarian, support this?