License to give birth?

[Osborn F Enready]

Rinoa said:
I figured, it's not like you to ignore those with a bone to pick.

You are getting to know me.

Rinoa said:
And if the power was held by the local government?

If the power were to be limited to only local government, with no possible option of usurpation from local government, I don't see why it couldn't be proposed at a local level, but I can see where people would have a legitimate argument against constitutional infringement of natural rights by the government.

I could also see the same problem with abstinence laws. If people want to have sex, or reproduce, they are going to if parents don't keep them seperated, and if they are adults being kept from reproducing by the law, I can't imagine the law would stop them.

Rinoa said:
Reproduction sure, but keeping the child afterward after having shown a lack of fitness to do so?

Once again, fitness to do so would then be open to "the local governments definitions", and simply being at the local level would not ensure that minorities would not get denied natural rights to reproduction.

In many places there are laws against incest, but incest still occurs.

Where then is the liability of the parents, and the child, if the parents are punished for having a child against the law? Does this become a burden to taxpayers? Other implications also.

Rinoa said:
Remember, my idea for licensing would be a simple background check to look for past abuses of children, or other troubles, like recent drug use and a basic class/test that would teach simple things, like don't shake the baby. If you can't meet basic requirements like that, how are you to be fit parents?

What role are you expecting the law, and penal system to play here?

Rinoa said:
Also, adoption agencies have similar requirements for those looking to adopt. Why do babies that are given up deserve the reassurement of a good new family while the family choosing to keep them can doom the baby, as in the vegan baby killer thread?

Well, because of liability issues.

The "adoption agency" is charged for finding "good homes" for babies that are up for adoption.

The service they are providing is to "attempt to provide a stable, healthy home life and quality parents or guardians".

Individuals have a right to have children if nature allows. Why? Because nature allows it, that is how we got here, and we are bound by natural laws infinitely more than man-made laws.

People have a right to reproduce, and parents have a responsibility to maintain the health and welfare of their children in order to maintain their rights of care over the child. Once they fail at that task, then we can attempt to intervene, based on the rights of the child, but to "assume guilt" by demanding a test is directly against individual rights.

[fushigi]

It wouldn't happen.... sure somthing similar is in China, but China isn't democratic now is it?

They wouldn't get away with something like that..... you can't lisence out something that humans do naturally.

Back to devil's advocation, then. Since we can't prevent people from naturally having children, we simply install IUDs in 100% of potentially reproductive females and fine households $25,000 for not reporting their daughters' first menstruation to the local Family Planning Office (the rich families will simply pay this fee to avoid having the government intrude on their children's reproductive privacy.

If that sounds like gender discrimination, we could also give 100% of males age 12 and up reversible vasectomies and institute similar fines for families who don't comply.

Then, we make women / men apply to have their IUDs removed / vasectomies reversed in order to begin attempts at reproduction. The review board will consider such factors as income, education, genetic predisposition to disease, and alcohol / drug addiction to make its decision.

Very simple, indeed.

fushigi

[Osborn F Enready]

until the rebellion anyway....

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Could someone please explain to me what kind of diversity it is that we would be losing?



Reread that paragraph for me and re-explain how it proves that this proposal is a bad thing?



How so?



Well shit sherlock...I lose faith in human nature on its own when I see some kid shooting his classmates, or when I read about fifth graders demonstrating sex for their entire class.



Well why would we allow those with 'nasty capabilities' to raise their children and train them to have the same 'nasty capabilities'?



No it doesn't. It just means that we don't allow druggies and baby killers to keep their kids. Fushigi, for instance would not be allowed the slavery of parenthood. Instead his child would be given to someone who wants to feed a baby.



Again, how does this rid us of diversity? And how would the lack of that particular diversity be harmful?

Rinoa this type of utopia where control is created at country or state level would be a greater foothold for the facist controllers of society.
Whilst it is a spiritual view that the abused and abusers have rights to enact their choice. Out intolerance of this occuring based on our own beliefs cannot be mannifested in law.
The principal is wholly good, I must agree. but their is a high potential for this to rapidly move from licence to full control. The opportunity to ensure sterilisation of certain unsavoury elements of society, followed by introduction of genetic modification of the fetus would become more accpetable as the erradication of the unpleasant traits occurs (the parent abusers either through lack of attention or physical disturbance)

It would also lead to mass unemployment of those who "help" and encourage the children to become better citizens despite their background. :)

[CoffeeSaint]

ROFLMAO

Hey, isn't that what "government" was supposed to be?!?

Welcome to the Libertarian Party.

Can I be an anti-gun libertarian? If I don't support legislative elimination of firearms? And can I still believe that the federal government is useful for providing certain services to all people -- or at least that it could be useful if it weren't such a den of ignorance and iniquity?

Anyway, because of this:

Individuals have a right to have children if nature allows. Why? Because nature allows it, that is how we got here, and we are bound by natural laws infinitely more than man-made laws.

People have a right to reproduce, and parents have a responsibility to maintain the health and welfare of their children in order to maintain their rights of care over the child. Once they fail at that task, then we can attempt to intervene, based on the rights of the child, but to "assume guilt" by demanding a test is directly against individual rights.

. . . and this:

Whilst it is a spiritual view that the abused and abusers have rights to enact their choice. Out intolerance of this occuring based on our own beliefs cannot be mannifested in law.
The principal is wholly good, I must agree. but their is a high potential for this to rapidly move from licence to full control. The opportunity to ensure sterilisation of certain unsavoury elements of society, followed by introduction of genetic modification of the fetus would become more accpetable as the erradication of the unpleasant traits occurs (the parent abusers either through lack of attention or physical disturbance)

. . . you folks have convinced me. Damnit. I hate people.

[brien]

What is your logic that leads to the conclusion that producing a child gives you the natural right to raise that same child? Or however you derive the natural right to parent?

Producing a child makes one responsible for the welfare of that child until they reeach the age of consent. The law recognizes this when it forces fathers to pay child support until the age of consent. Thus the right to parent that child presupposes the responsiblity because with rights comes repsonsibilities, so if one is forced to be repsonsible by the governemnt to pay for the child, then that parent must have the right to raise them. You can't force a responsibliity upon the parent without conferring the right to parent that child. Unless, of course, they violate the rights of the child, or the law, which would negate those rights.

I personally believe that every child one brings into this world makes parents responsible for every aspect of the welfare of that child until they reach the age of consent. To do anything less, is immoral, irresponsible, and illegal.

[Praxius]

Back to devil's advocation, then. Since we can't prevent people from naturally having children, we simply install IUDs in 100% of potentially reproductive females and fine households $25,000 for not reporting their daughters' first menstruation to the local Family Planning Office (the rich families will simply pay this fee to avoid having the government intrude on their children's reproductive privacy.

If that sounds like gender discrimination, we could also give 100% of males age 12 and up reversible vasectomies and institute similar fines for families who don't comply.

Then, we make women / men apply to have their IUDs removed / vasectomies reversed in order to begin attempts at reproduction. The review board will consider such factors as income, education, genetic predisposition to disease, and alcohol / drug addiction to make its decision.

Very simple, indeed.

fushigi

Not really that simple actually, since the technology isn't quite perfect for most reversable vesectomies..... and there are reports of certain IUD's to cause damage to the Uteran wall and/or cause problems with future reproduction.

The main thing is, you are still trying to impose medical procedures on the entire community, which I can imagine a lot of it would oppose. The cost for these operations per person would be quite high and trying to jail or fine people for refusing this proceedure would not only open up even further waste of tax dollars, much like the "War on Drugs" by trying to police such a plan, the court details to follow and the jailing of people who really never commited a crime.

At this point in our societies, it is pretty much volintary to get your vacinations.... nobody get's jailed or fined for refusing to get them. What this theory proposes is the governement stepping in and forcing their citizens to do something to their own personal bodies that most would probably oppose, and giving you no options whatsoever in the matter.

I was saying this method can not work in a democratic society, and if it is forced, then the country in question is no longer a democratic country. You will have the state dictating what you can and can not do with your lives.... plain and simple..... they would be telling you if and when you can have a child and start a family, they will be telling you how many you are allowed, etc.... Soon enough they'll be dictating who you can have a relationship with, for how long, and the time period between when you met them and when you have to make the decision as to when you want to get married.

Now I know for a fact in the US and Canada, this system would undermine the lives of millions.... and would automatically be discrimination to any and all low income families..... think about it:

You just got a crappy job to make ends meet. You get into a relationship, and you love the person you are with. The job you have has no potiential of promotion of a real future, but it's all you got. You want to get a home, a wife/husband, a family, etc.... but then you need to go through the system to be approved if you can do this...... they then see you are not making enough money to sustain a family, and reject your request. Then you look for the assistance programs out there for low income families to help with child support, etc..... then those programs will reject you because you have been denied by the government from having a child..... so you're screwed.

Meanwhile those who are already rich, can afford the living quality the governent deemed the requirement, get their lisence and have their kids, then for having children, you are then awards further assistance money for each kid you have..... in other words, just like today, the Rich get richer and can do what they want, and the poor get poorer and loose even more rights to keep them where they are.

I can't even fathom who in their right mind would be for something like this. Just one more right removed, one more opressive law added, and one big step away from what democracy is.

This would be something I'd certainly goto war for...... without a hesitation..... if something like this was passed, then it would be one big blow to human individual rights and freedom to live your life as you see fit.

If Canada did this, the country would be torn apart. If this happened in the US, you best take the "Land of the Free" from your name, because you sure as hell already lost enough freedoms already since Bush Head got in power.... this would be the icing on the cake.

[Praxius]

Not to be pointing fingers or anything.... but did a Christian think this idea up?

I mean that by saying it follows very closly towards something that would go hand in hand with marriage and would reduce a lot of premarital sex and non-married families.....

There is no over population problem in either the US or Canada, so I see no practical need for something like this, unless it was created to make the Moral Police happy.

[Rinoa]

Praxius: I completely agree with your response to fushigi...That's not the sort of thing I would want enstated.

I've actually heard this idea theoretically proposed several times...Sometimes christians, but actually one christian belief is the right to have children, mormons heavily encourage the replenishment of the earth through reproduction...And I don't think it would do a thing to prevent premarital sex. My version just said whether or not you could keep the baby, and it didn't have a criteria for being married, though I do believe a good happy marriage to be the best situation in which to raise a child.

[brien]

Osborn wrote:

People have a right to reproduce, and parents have a responsibility to maintain the health and welfare of their children in order to maintain their rights of care over the child. Once they fail at that task, then we can attempt to intervene, based on the rights of the child, but to "assume guilt" by demanding a test is directly against individual rights

I say there is nothing more to say but what is written above. Excellent, well stated, and succinct post there Os.