Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Should society require people to earn a license before becoming parents? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Should society require people to earn a license before becoming parents?
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What does wedlock have to do with it? Just because they are sanctified by their cult doesn't make them any more legitimate candidates for parenthood than anybody else."

Sure, a devout person who gets in front of

a) his/her family

b) his/her friends

c) his/her God

is just as likely to run off with a lap dancer named Roxy as someone who just shacks up with a girl [Roll Eyes] And I would like to see "rates" of abandonment and broken relationships, not pure numbers if you dispute it.

No it's not going to work every time. Yes, some men and women are happy to be known as scum to their relations for the new trophy spouse. It will still act as a brake...or at least it used to when opinion was more uniform.

Just another example of a break in society which is band-aided over by a government program...poorly.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would love a reversible sterilization procedure for men. Making it mandatory? No. Much as I might like to, (way too many stupid people having kids and ruining them), it would be enslavement.

I just hope the people truly advocating it are never offered the powers of the Q.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just because people aren't always producing the results you want them to, does not mean the state would be more competent at doing so.

Who here, upon viewing the evidence available to them, thinks that the government does a good job of raising people?

Anyone? Anyone?

It's not the government's job. They can step in when the parent(s) actually neglect their kids -- not before. I mean, good luck regulating sex anyhow, without resorting to seriously barbaric practices. The open society has enough enemies as it is.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SwampJedi
Member
Member # 915

 - posted      Profile for SwampJedi   Email SwampJedi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah honestly - don't we have the presumption of innocence?

I do think the idea of a voluntary, reversable procedure has merit, for those who want to 'fool around' without as many consequences.

Posts: 91 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We got more than that, SwampJedi. We got a presumption of democracy. [Smile] Mandatory sterilization would be anything but.
Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if the government issued these licenses, then that would mean there would be only as many bad parents as there are bad drivers? [Smile]
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SwampJedi
Member
Member # 915

 - posted      Profile for SwampJedi   Email SwampJedi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly, Ed. I think I said earlier (maybe it was the prison thread, in response to TinMan's ideas on brainwashing) that such a thing would be, in the end, a destruction of democracy.

How can a country be democratic when the 'rulers' decide who gets to create the next generation? After all, babies are potential voters! [Wink]

Posts: 91 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jedi,

I'm all for laws that protect children. Not laws that restrict adults, unless these adults might be a hazard to children.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Jedi,

I'm all for laws that protect children. Not laws that restrict adults, unless these adults might be a hazard to children.

KE

I would be more comfortable if you said "unless these adults ARE a hazard to children."
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav, you have to take the tests first to find out if you might be a hazard to the child. It's a little late if you have the child and you "are" a hazard.

Oh, and I'm also for making people take driving tests before they are allowed to drive on our roads.

See, I'm for the government intervening only when a citizen might or is hurting another citizen. Not what they are doing to themselves. See Jedi?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I might be committing a crime right now. Send someone to check up on me.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I might place you under arrest, if I weren't to lazy to drive over there. [Wink]
Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:

Oh, and I'm also for making people take driving tests before they are allowed to drive on our roads.

Sure, but should people have to take a test every time they change the state they live in, especially since driving priviledges are routinely extended to visitors - some of which come from countries that drive on the left (wrong) side of the road?

It's that kind of inconsistency and inefficiency that government brings to everything that it does - because it has no pressure to improve.

Sorry if I'm distracting from the parent license idea, but this really does bear on the issue. We tend to think that driver's licenses are a good idea. But there is no physical prevention of an unlicensed driver from driving, and little ability to catch those who are doing so. There are also few standards, and the emphasis is all wrong.

Should an operator's license be focused on obscure rules - like how many feet from a corner one can park? Or the precise fine amount for a DUI?

Or should greater emphasis be placed on the ability to avoid accidents, personal injury, etc.

I learned far more from a motorcyle safety course and driver's education than I ever did from the licensing process. Private industry gives discounts for taking these courses on insurance premiums. Isn't that actually more effective?

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Just as a thought provoking statement, do any other Conservatives see any lack of substantive difference between family control on their daughters dating and this government control? Because in the end, the effect is the same in many ways. It's only whose actions we are accepting to get the end result

We've been yelling about unwanted children and self restraint for, oh, forever. Welcome to the Conservative ranks, Ev "

Oh, I never claimed not to be conservative in my own life. I just don't think conservative philosophy is moral or functional government [Smile]

See, if we all tell our kids not to have sex (the conservative response) they go out and have MORE sex (the teenage response to "stupid parents.")

If we STERILIZE all our kids, then they can't have kids, even if they have sex. See?! it works!

Anyrate, as a point of clarification, when I do advocate sterilization at birth, I also advocate that the choice to be re-fertilized should be up to the individual (Actually couple... the one requirement I would have is that a person must come in with the person he intends to impregnante/ intends to be impregnated by) involved... not the state.

[ January 11, 2006, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Ev, let's get this straight...you advocate sterilization at birth, unless you don't?

Wow...it must be great to be a communist.

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SwampJedi:
Yeah honestly - don't we have the presumption of innocence?

I do think the idea of a voluntary, reversable procedure has merit, for those who want to 'fool around' without as many consequences.

Excellent argument, Jedi.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do think the idea of a voluntary, reversable procedure has merit, for those who want to 'fool around' without as many consequences.
Well, there's already such a thing available. It's called a vasectomy. Yes, they are reversable.

I just kinda have a problem with giving vasectomies to all males at birth, and requiring a permit at adulthood to have it reversed.

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I want to have a vasectomy, but since my wife had her tubes tied she doesn't see the need. Wives. [Frown]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, not that I want to help the other side, but mandatory vasectomies at birth would cause boys to forego condums and endanger their health. I'll have to think about that aspect.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
heheh...I similarly avoided the horror of getting sliced and diced when my wife had her tubes tied.

It'd be great if pregnancy avoidance was the only reason to use condoms. When I was young (augh! the old "in my day" thing!) we didn't have to worry about AIDS, and all the other crap could be taken care of with a quick trip to a sympathetic doctor.

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev - Who pays for the sterilization, and who pays for the reversal? Oh, and what happens as recourse if the reversal procedure doesn't work? Someone else decided to just... force him/her to take that risk on his/her behalf, eh? The state knows what's good for him/her?

Even if there's a 1% chance that the reversal (or the procedure itself!) won't work, or will cause an infection in the patient (or a reaction to the anasthetic), you're talking millions of people harmed.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SwampJedi
Member
Member # 915

 - posted      Profile for SwampJedi   Email SwampJedi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread reminds me of the premise of "Minority Report."

***

If the test for "parental fitness" shows that you might be at risk of being a bad parent, you don't get to have children. I assume that's based on statistical models?

In that case, can't we justify profiling in other instances?

***

Let's turn this on it's head for a bit. Imagine for a minute that this suggestion is implemented. People can only reproduce with government sanction.

So, in this circumstance, imagine that the Christian Right (which I am a member of) revolts politically and sweeps a large number elected positions... and Pat Robertson ends up President. Instead of removing the laws, the loonies get the idea to use this opportunity to remake the nation as a Christian Nation (tm). People who disagree with the loony agenda (like say, atheists, Muslisms, or me) no longer get to reproduce. Game over. The people who don't like it become... inconvienent... and disappear.

Yeah, the example is outrageous. The point, however, is that creating a law or precedent that can be used as a tool in your enemies' hands is a bad idea. This is why the Nuclear Option for the House/Senate rules is a bad idea. Once you've crossed the line, all bets are off.

[ January 11, 2006, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: SwampJedi ]

Posts: 91 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A law that licensed child-bearing would not be Constitutional. There is a reason to restrict the power of the Federal government.

I am amazed that such a policy would have any supporters here on Ornery, regardless of its potential positive outcome.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SwampJedi
Member
Member # 915

 - posted      Profile for SwampJedi   Email SwampJedi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Firedrake, it doesn't seem Constitutional to me, either - but I can't place why.

I'd hate to rely on the "right to privacy," since it's not really spelled out in there.

[ January 11, 2006, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: SwampJedi ]

Posts: 91 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think a court of any political stripe would even entertain this notion. I can't believe we're even discussing it here.
Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are a lot of things that seemed unthinkable in the past that we take for granted now. And there are good arguments for this course of action.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SwampJedi
Member
Member # 915

 - posted      Profile for SwampJedi   Email SwampJedi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
I'm all for laws that protect children. Not laws that restrict adults, unless these adults might be a hazard to children.

Allowing adults to drink alcohol might be a hazard to children. How many children are beaten by drunks?

Allowing adults to choose what food is available might be a hazard to children. How many on-the-go parents have McD's fat children?

Allowing adults to own guns might be a hazard to children. Kids sometimes find guns and kill each other, right?

Allowing adults to choose a religion might be a hazard to children. This one's a firecracker, so I'll leave it at that.

The all-knowing, never wrong government needs to raise all children.

Life is a hazard to children, unless they live in confinement. Most come out ok.

Maybe I'll post my thoughts on what should be done, tomorrow. It's simple though - personal responsibility instead of nanny state.

[ January 11, 2006, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: SwampJedi ]

Posts: 91 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The goal here is to make it easier to not get pregnant than to get pregnant. Our culture isn't very big on personal responsibility anymore.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So Ev, let's get this straight...you advocate sterilization at birth, unless you don't?

Wow...it must be great to be a communist."

No eric, I advocate sterilization at birth only out of sheer frustration on bad day and never actually MEAN that I think it would be a good idea.

And that has absolutely zero to do with my political philosophy. In FACT, my political philosophy is why I'd never SERIOUSLY suggest sterilization at birth.

*Puts eric on his permanent do-not talk to list*

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The goal here is to make it easier to not get pregnant than to get pregnant. Our culture isn't very big on personal responsibility anymore."

I'm just curious when it WAS big on personal responsibility?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

I'm just curious when it WAS big on personal responsibility?

When you froze to death if you didn't chop enough wood.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This kind of debate has been going on ever since the Reverend Malthus worried that 'the powers of the land might be exhausted'. Social Darwinists were keen on this sort of interference in whose genes got into the pool. Eugenics supporters proposed taking away the reproduction of 'lower orders', 'degenerates' or indeed those below a certain IQ.

I can't believe we are recasting the debate on the pretext of child welfare. I can only assume that those who support this assume they would naturally qualify for a license straight away - clearly you've all always had great experiences with government bureaucracies!

Now a machiavellian social darwinist (Dawkins-esque) reading of this whole thread is that supporters of licensing and sterilization are happy to do so because they believe their genes are more likely to continue and this policy would knock a whole lot of the competition for six. Looks like the selfish gene evolutionary imperative is strong here.

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adjudicator:
I find the positions taken on this issue as contrasted with the issue of homosexual marriage to be interesting, to say the least.

I don't support this proposal, I just think it is an interesting idea to debate.

In my opinion the idea of regulating parenthood in this way is a standard bit of trying to place a bandaid on a cultural institution that we broke/ are breaking with stupid policies that weren't though through when they were implemented. Weakening the institution of marriage at every step and then trying to go back and reap the benefits thereof through a law like this is simply trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Exactly right. [Big Grin]

Any of you with the nerve to support this blatant, fascist type of policy should be ashamed. How many americans have died to win and hold the freedom you so casually talk of throwing away? Its disgusting. [Mad]

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cytania, once again you are spouting vitriol in seeming ignorance of what's been stated in a thread. When is it all going to stop? Do you even care?

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Any of you with the nerve to support this blatant, fascist type of policy should be ashamed. How many americans have died to win and hold the freedom you so casually talk of throwing away? Its disgusting. [Mad]
Wow, have you considered dating Cytania? [Wink]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A few choice quotes:

"I can't believe we're even discussing it here."

I can't believe that people posting here on Ornery would actually say this. Of COURSE we're discussing it here. This is a DISCUSSION board, after all. We SHOULD be willing to discuss anything, and I mean anything, here. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people on this board hold reason and rationality to be of some critical importance to deciding what direction our country should take. As such, we should be willing to reasonably and rationally consider every option.

This is an option.

So we are considering it.

This has been, on the whole, a good discussion. There have been a few points of flaming, but for the most part, people have been trying to make their cases with reasons and logic.

Nothing should ever be so sacred that it becomes beyond the bounds of rational discourse.

Back to your regularly scheduled Ornery debate...

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
CNN just posted a story about columbia that sure sounds like a first step towards this sort of thing.

CNN article

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
quote:
Any of you with the nerve to support this blatant, fascist type of policy should be ashamed. How many americans have died to win and hold the freedom you so casually talk of throwing away? Its disgusting. [Mad]
Wow, have you considered dating Cytania? [Wink]

Ouch [Frown] I know the wording could have been a lot more diplomatic, but I'm just trying to express my sincere, grave concern, over seeing so many people talk of supporting such an obvious violation of human rights. I felt the strong words were the only way to convey my strong objection. I'm not trying to "spout vitriol" as you put it.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SwampJedi
Member
Member # 915

 - posted      Profile for SwampJedi   Email SwampJedi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was rather strong myself - after all, I did say that I'd take up arms against any administraton that implemented this plan.

Maybe there's a better way to explain the utter loathing I'd feel towards living under such a system.

[ January 11, 2006, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: SwampJedi ]

Posts: 91 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I was rather strong myself - after all, I did say that I'd take up arms against any administraton that implemented this plan.

Maybe there's a better way to explain the utter loathing I'd feel towards living under such a system."

I tend to think this is a good way to express utter loathing.

Its basically saying "Such a system is one that I would work to violently overthrow."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1