You are getting to know me.Rinoa said:
I figured, it's not like you to ignore those with a bone to pick.
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.Rinoa said:
And if the power was held by the local 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.
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.Rinoa said:
Reproduction sure, but keeping the child afterward after having shown a lack of fitness to do so?
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.
What role are you expecting the law, and penal system to play here?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?
Well, because of liability issues.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?
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.