• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should couples need a license to procreate?

Should a license be required to have children?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 45.0%
  • No

    Votes: 11 55.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
While we do see too many people having kids who shouldn't, leading to abuse, neglect, etc. How would it be enforced? What criteria would need to be met in order to be licensed? Who would make the decision and what would prevent them from abusing such power?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
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.
Do friends count as extended family or what? I'm estranged from almost my entire blood relatives. But when I get it together, I wouldn't let that stop me from having a family.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
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

.

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.
jsp_avatar1_20151018175319531p9n5gorg.jpg

.
Yay, eugenics! Because it worked so well before! :rolleyes:
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It would be a boon for government coffers that politicians could loot for throwing better innaugural balls. Why not.
 

illykitty

RF's pet cat
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

.

Well, considering that my mom has a below average IQ and mine is over 110, it means nothing. I highly question the methods of determination (tests and such) and whatever IQ measures anyway. I wouldn't call my mom "dull" she has a lot more sense than a lot of people I know (which would be considered "normal" at least), but she fails at what IQ tests measure. She has huge learning difficulties too. People sometimes treat her like she's dumb because of that and it makes me angry to be honest.

As for the OP, it's so tempting to say yes, because of what the bad consequences are when people procreate without much thought, solid commitment and so on. Especially if they have many children. On the other hand, you can also think of the consequences of what such kinds of laws would result in. Lots of illegal activity, maybe forced abortions and sterilisations and the government meddling in too much private affairs. I can understand though the thought and feelings behind desiring such laws but I think that with education and soft encouragements of having less children while maintaining freedom is probably best. Ideally, you'd want a society that promotes more wealth equality and good education then you'd probably see birth rates decreasing.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Well, considering that my mom has a below average IQ and mine is over 110, it means nothing. I highly question the methods of determination (tests and such) and whatever IQ measures anyway. I wouldn't call my mom "dull" she has a lot more sense than a lot of people I know (which would be considered "normal" at least), but she fails at what IQ tests measure. She has huge learning difficulties too. People sometimes treat her like she's dumb because of that and it makes me angry to be honest.
Didn't say everyone below average IQ, only those with an IQ below 90. And there is no failing an IQ test.

.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
It's interesting that pretty much everyone thinks it would be a good idea, in theory, but that there would be no way to humanely put it in practice.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Well, considering that my mom has a below average IQ and mine is over 110, it means nothing. I highly question the methods of determination (tests and such) and whatever IQ measures anyway. I wouldn't call my mom "dull" she has a lot more sense than a lot of people I know (which would be considered "normal" at least), but she fails at what IQ tests measure. She has huge learning difficulties too. People sometimes treat her like she's dumb because of that and it makes me angry to be honest.

As for the OP, it's so tempting to say yes, because of what the bad consequences are when people procreate without much thought, solid commitment and so on. Especially if they have many children. On the other hand, you can also think of the consequences of what such kinds of laws would result in. Lots of illegal activity, maybe forced abortions and sterilisations and the government meddling in too much private affairs. I can understand though the thought and feelings behind desiring such laws but I think that with education and soft encouragements of having less children while maintaining freedom is probably best. Ideally, you'd want a society that promotes more wealth equality and good education then you'd probably see birth rates decreasing.
Sadly, IQ tests were originally created to help identify struggling students in school so that they may be helped. The negative eugenics crowd got a hold of them and misused them. Disgusting, really. Also, intelligence's genetic components are very disputed, but we do know that it tends to be highly influenced by environment and overall health. Flynn effect - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
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.
I like it. It is biased against poor people, since only rich people would have the money to have a third kid. (Oh, god. The third child would become a status symbol, wouldn't it.)

But... it is hard to raise lots of kids well when you're poor, so that sorta seems like it perfectly fits the criteria.

It still runs into the issue of how to enforce it. What if someone has the 2nd child even if the don't pass the requirements? What if someone has the 3rd kid but can't afford the taxes? At the end of the day, either you force abortions (ick) or you end up hurting kids (removing them from parents, not giving them equal opportunity, etc).

The only enforcement I can think of that has the least ethical issues is forced, reversible sterilization. After your first, you are sterilized. Once you pass the application for the second or third, sterilization is reversed during the time you are making the approved babies, then reapplied after their births.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It's interesting that pretty much everyone thinks it would be a good idea, in theory, but that there would be no way to humanely put it in practice.
On the contrary, it is necessary to put it in practice sooner or later. For what turns out to be very much humanitarian reasons.

The only real hurdle is that it will hurt considerably if it is voluntary, and a lot more if it is not.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
On the contrary, it is necessary to put it in practice sooner or later. For what turns out to be very much humanitarian reasons.

The only real hurdle is that it will hurt considerably if it is voluntary, and a lot more if it is not.
No, it's not inevitable or necessary.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
No, it's not inevitable or necessary.
It's not... if people self-police themselves, which I don't see happening in time.

It's not... if you don't mind having the future generations live on an overpacked, dying planet with never enough food to eat.

It's not... if you expect some technological miracle to save us in time (self-sufficient space colonization, agricultural breakthroughs)
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
It's not... if people self-police themselves, which I don't see happening in time.

It's not... if you don't mind having the future generations live on an overpacked, dying planet with never enough food to eat.

It's not... if you expect some technological miracle to save us in time (self-sufficient space colonization, agricultural breakthroughs)
For one, I'm not that alarmist. Also, if we work to continue giving women and girls access to education and careers, the birth rate will continue to drop, like it has in developed countries. The areas with the highest birthrates are the poorest and most socially unstable places with the least opportunities for women.
 
Top