|
Post by geneva on Oct 15, 2003 19:35:03 GMT -5
waitwiatwaitwait... if in a future society we fix all the problems such as poverty that are what makes bad parents then we won't NEED a license to procreate....
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 15, 2003 20:54:27 GMT -5
Yup. For the most part. But nevetheless, good parenting depends more than on money. Even if in the future we establish a very effective education system, there will still be some people who will not take responsibility for their actions. This license is to weed out those that do not learn good behavior towards caring for children. This license might one day be as common as a driver's license. I'm sure that most people can be able to drive well even if they don't actually carry a card with them. Even so, you still need the license or you will be committing a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Salome on Oct 17, 2003 19:31:11 GMT -5
no, ppl are too corrupt and it couldnt be inforced so no, bad idea, well good idea, but bad idea, yeah, u all understand
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Oct 17, 2003 20:56:47 GMT -5
of course... well i can't agree at alll... according to my religon God said "go forth and be fruitful"....
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 17, 2003 21:21:12 GMT -5
Isn't it "be fruitful and multiply?" I'm just wondering... Um... anyway, yes being fruitful is a right of everyone. But if someone was going to raise their child in a way that might harm the child or cause the child to harm others (like in health class, many abusers were abused themselves. I sort of have an experience with this that I won't go into), won't it be a higher priority to protect the safety of other people first and be "fruitful" later?
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Oct 18, 2003 17:17:10 GMT -5
- - ;
close enough....
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Nov 4, 2003 20:47:16 GMT -5
With the license to procreate we can regulate people so that the ones that are truely incompetant are unable to hurt children under their care or cause their children to become abusive and hurt others. Hence in the long run everyone's fruits will remained unharmed and no one will have to suffer from someone else's bad children or to suffer from a bad family life in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Nov 5, 2003 22:53:51 GMT -5
Such a law could not deal with ex post facto cases, children already in bad situations, and so would take an entire generation to achieve any result.
Also, how would any "unlicensed procreators" be dealt with? Would there have to be massive orphanages for "confiscated" children? Or would the violtaers be denied state support? A law is meaningless unless it has consequences for violations (societal pressure isn't effective or reliable), but I cannot see how any consequences could be feasibly administered.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Nov 6, 2003 0:24:28 GMT -5
Indeed it would require an entire generation to implement, but all things must start somewhere.
As for potential violators (which there will be) they can be sent through a parenting class and required to pass before they give birth, give the child up for adoption, or abortion. The government will force one of the three on the violators. Whichever is their choice.
Of course, society will function more smoothly if they choose the first option since it would prevent any pile up of children waiting for adoptions. Abortion has some uneasy tones with it and will probably start lots of opposition and such.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Nov 6, 2003 17:12:32 GMT -5
I think the government should be able to regulate it not because some people will be 'bad parents,' though this is definitely a problem, but because the U.S.A. is getting overpopulated. We already have a problem with overcrouding in big cities and with enough imigrants coming in to keep the population steady even without having kids, I don't think people should go around having six or seven kids just because they can or for some religious reason.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Nov 14, 2003 21:03:51 GMT -5
it's not as if the over-populated cities are over-populated for lack of anywhere else to go.... ever see the middle of the country? it's desolate...
frankly speaking, regulation of childbirth wouldn't solve that.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Nov 17, 2003 23:07:41 GMT -5
Now that I think of it, my idea to regulate childbirth probably won't be the main focus of the license except in certain extreme situations where having more children is inappropiate (such as alcoholic parents who are using the welfare money to buy booze for instance) It would instead just regulate the right to care for children. Now, if only I could think of a way to identify such parents...
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Nov 20, 2003 12:43:59 GMT -5
And what, pray tell, would you do with the children whose parents aren't capable of taking care of them?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Nov 20, 2003 20:50:42 GMT -5
Hmmmm, well the only thing I can think of, is to make sure the parents are well certified before they even give birth. If they somehow get past this barrier, then a temporary adoption might work until they get certified.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Nov 21, 2003 2:37:53 GMT -5
hmm... you'll end up with a lot of long-term "temporary" problems that way.
Also it would be extremly difficult to find enough parents who would be willing to take care of the child.
|
|