Should couples need a license to procreate?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yup. And although the term has acquired negative connotations, the reason for the acquisition shouldn't go into defining it.

I would say that it's earned those negative connotations.

I haven't proposed any law. All I said was, "some kind of deterrence" and "some way to prevent people."

What you care to clarify what exactly you propose?

 

[Falvlun]

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.

I don't think I am either. I do think that if nothing changes, then that is absolutely our trajectory. But I have hope that things will change, like you say, through education.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

It is your position, then, that we should implement despite the ethical issues, because it is more unethical to do nothing?

It's so hard to know. Like I said to St Frank, if we don't change, I'm with you-- we gotta force people to change.

But if people will change, then forcing it would be an unnecessary evil.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I agree. However overpopulation and consumption of resources is a matter where sometime in the future people will surely have to face and address.

 

[Skwim]

I would say that it's earned those negative connotations.

Then in light of all the vile stuff the Christian god has done you should feel thankful its never sullied his good name, because he has certainly earned it.

What you care to clarify what exactly you propose?

Other than "There should be some kind of deterrence for having more than two kids" I have nothing else to propose.

.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then in light of all the vile stuff the Christian god has done you should feel thankful its never sullied his good name, because he has certainly earned it.

That was rude and unnecessary, as well as off-topic.

Other than "There should be some kind of deterrence for having more than two kids" I have nothing else to propose.

Fine.

 

[Falvlun]

I agree. However overpopulation and consumption of resources is a matter where sometime in the future people will surely have to face and address.

Yup, either we change, or technology will allow us to keep putting it off, or we die.

Overpopulation aside, what about people who are unfit to be parents?

For example (not an exhaustive list, nor necessarily a list that reflect my views of who should be considered unfit):
-People who have already lost parental rights to other children
-people who have been convicted of child molestation or abuse
-drug addicts
-people with mental deficiencies
-people with genetic issues
-people who cannot afford to care for their children

By allowing just anyone to have children, we doom a lot of children to difficult, unfair lives. This is occurring now, not in some hypothetical overpopulated future.

 

[crossfire]

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

Indeed. Human traffickers could have a field day with this.

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.

If you impose heavy taxes on having children, how are the parents supposed to support the children if the State takes away their resources to do so?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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.

I would suggest only sterilization after not paying taxes for the 3rd kid;
or in extreme poverty, then the 2nd kid.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Indeed. Human traffickers could have a field day with this.


If you impose heavy taxes on having children, how are the parents supposed to support the children if the State takes away their resources to do so?

The state will have to find foster homes for them until the parents can afford to keep them.

 

[crossfire]

The state will have to find foster homes for them until the parents can afford to keep them.

So basically, the parents are coerced and forced to pay for someone else to take care of their child via the heavy tax imposed on having a child?

 

[Skwim]

That was rude and unnecessary, as well as off-topic.

Not at all. That you see it as rude and unnecessary only indicates your refusal to acknowledge that some of god's actions are vile, that is, unless you don't regard his killing innocent women and children as vile. So, do you or do you not? Please check the appropriate box.

⃞ I regard god's killing of innocent women and children as good
⃞ I regard god's killing of innocent women and children as vile

And it's not off topic because the topic is: words that have earned "negative connotations," something YOU initiated with your, "I would say that [eugenics] earned those negative connotations." Now, you may not think the word "god" has earned negative connotations, but as I pointed out, in light of what the god of Abraham has done I think it qualifies just as much as the word "eugenics," and even more so. YET "god" remains unsaddled with such connotations, something you find hard to grant "eugenics.".

 

[crossfire]

I would suggest only sterilization after not paying taxes for the 3rd kid;
or in extreme poverty, then the 2nd kid.

Right now, if you are a childless young woman who doesn't want to have children, it is very difficult to find a doctor who perform the sterilization.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Right now, if you are a childless young woman who doesn't want to have children, it is very difficult to find a doctor who perform the sterilization.

No, never sterilize a childless woman.
I have a depressed cat who was sterilized before she could have kittens.
Catnip helps. A bit.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not at all. That you see it as rude and unnecessary only indicates your refusal to acknowledge that some of god's actions are vile, that is, unless you don't regard his killing innocent women and children as vile. So, do you or do you not? Please check the appropriate box.

⃞ I regard god's killing of innocent women and children as good
⃞ I regard god's killing of innocent women and children as vile

And it's not off topic because the topic is: words that have earned "negative connotations," something YOU initiated with your, "I would say that [eugenics] earned those negative connotations." Now, you may not think the word "god" has earned negative connotations, but as I pointed out, in light of what the god of Abraham has done I think it qualifies just as much as the word "eugenics," and even more so. YET "god" remains unsaddled with such connotations, something you find hard to grant "eugenics.".

Are you done ranting and raving?

 

[Skwim]

Are you done ranting and raving?

Oh no you don't. Before I answer any questions you first have to answer mine.

So, do you or do you not? Please check the appropriate box.

⃞ I regard god's killing of innocent women and children as good
⃞ I regard god's killing of innocent women and children as vile
​

After all, fair's fair.

And I'm sorry that you find my explanatory post to be ranting and raving. Gotta wonder what kind of dictionary you grew up with, or is this something you do with all difficult posts; dismiss them by mischaracterization so as to avoid addressing them?

.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh no you don't. Before I answer any questions you first have to answer mine.

So, do you or do you not? Please check the appropriate box.

⃞ I regard god's killing of innocent women and children as good
⃞ I regard god's killing of innocent women and children as vile
​

After all, fair's fair.

And I'm sorry that you find my explanatory post to be ranting and raving. Gotta wonder what kind of dictionary you grew up with, or is this something you do with all difficult posts; dismiss them by mischaracterization so as to avoid addressing them?

.

It's cute how you assume I think God actually killed anyone. You assume wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

.​

120 isn't too smart to let hormones rule.
No worries.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

I don't actually support it in the real world.
But I like the fantasy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yay, eugenics! Because it worked so well before!

Know that I'm just having some fun.