License to breed- Do you think yes or no?

I kid you not, this is a serious topic. Do you think there should be a license to breed? How do you think it should be enforced. By what standards would one base the eligibility of a person for the license? The thought came up, and I thought it would be an interesting one to bring to the table.

I'm not sure this topic is fit for the Academy, serious inquiry or not, as an angle to support it hasn't been included, and I honestly cannot imagine one that wouldn't be serious trolling. So, while the search for varying viewpoints is always something to be respected, I'm not sure what sort of play you'll get out of this one.

The mere suggestion of declaring someone unfit to breed, whether overall or that they need to garner some sort of permission first, is a preposterous one. What would the basis be? Intelligence? Health? Accomplishment? Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant - it's a matter of human rights, something none of us are entitled to restrict another person on, moments of venting frustration aside.

As_Day_Fades said:

I'm not sure this topic is fit for the Academy, serious inquiry or not, as an angle to support it hasn't been included, and I honestly cannot imagine one that wouldn't be serious trolling. So, while the search for varying viewpoints is always something to be respected, I'm not sure what sort of play you'll get out of this one.

The mere suggestion of declaring someone unfit to breed, whether overall or that they need to garner some sort of permission first, is a preposterous one. What would the basis be? Intelligence? Health? Accomplishment? Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant - it's a matter of human rights, something none of us are entitled to restrict another person on, moments of venting frustration aside.

Click to expand...

Not sure how much I'll keep this going as I tend to avoid what tend to be mostly political and/or philosophical debates...

The usual arguments in support of such a restriction falls along the lines that owning and operating motor vehicles or guns or working within certain professional fields (medicine, demolition, all manner of engineering) require special licensing and acknowledgement from some form of governmental body, but anyone (without medical impairment) can have a kid.

However, there are a number of people that shouldn't have kids, though. Perhaps you don't need permission to breed, but your rights to do so could be lost if you violate them too egregiously?

Mr Master said:

However, there are a number of people that shouldn't have kids, though. Perhaps you don't need permission to breed, but your rights to do so could be lost if you violate them too egregiously?

Click to expand...

But what authority could exist that would be able to make such a determination? How could there be standards that would hold everyone to the same scrutiny, and what would be in place to prevent such an authority from using the system as a means to reduce the population of certain peoples in the name of "making sure the right people breed?" If breeding were something that could be made selective by simply passing a law, then it would have never been a right, but a privilege. Rights are not granted by any government or other human entity. They exist whether or not they are put in righting on some state-sponsored document. Yes, there are people who shouldn't breed, but there are a lot of things people shouldn't do, but they do so because they have that choice, even if it causes problems. Thats the nature of having freedom.

Putting aside the moral and human right's aspect of the issue for a moment, just from a logistical standpoint, how would this even be remotely feasible? It would require Big Brother levels of monitoring and surveillance in order to even have a hope of making the slightest bit of impact. Anything bigger than a suburban neighborhood would require massive amounts of man hours in order to ensure that only the "approved" individuals breed.

That also brings up the necessity of what would more or less be a list of those people permitted to breed, and those that aren't, perhaps similar to today's list of registered sex offenders. What's to stop the "unapproved" from becoming neglected and shunned by those that are "approved?" Class warfare wouldn't even begin to describe it. The whole idea is so incredibly absurd and would lead to far more harm than good in the long run, not to mention costing ungodly sums of money to maintain.

Well, if you're arrested and convicted of murder, you can be killed, apparently. Perhaps if you're arrested and convicted of child abuse, you should be given a vasctomy or have your tubes tied. If you've PROVEN that you can't be trusted to raise a kid, you're still allowed to go out and make more of them.

I'm not saying it should be done. I'm just saying, based on the question, that while you can't allow just approved people to breed, it might be possible to prohibit people who have demonstrated they can't be trusted to raise kids from being able to do so.

It wouldn't need to be Orwellian; it would look exactly the same as it does right this instant. We already have a police force, a justice system. This is just a tailored sentence for a particular strain of crimes. HOWEVER, given the accuracy and reliability of our justice system, I don't actually think it's realistically feasible. Works on paper, but in reality, can't be enforced properly. But the same is ALREADY true for ALL of our laws. Which is why it sucks to be poor and/or of color in our country. I.e., why it sucks to be 95% of the population.

So, yeah, pretty defense, and all that. Well-written. But really missing my point, and I freely concede that even if it were to pass, it would be instantly perverted and used unfairly. But that's true of existing laws, so no big change there, either.

I move to think of the meaning of the word "breed". Humans like to use fancier words for the creation of their offspring, such as procreate, conceive etc etc. When I first read the topic, it brought to mind a project my friend of mine and I came up with to create a human "breeding" lab, where couples could order tailor made babies from a roster of surrogates. Now, if we're talking about breeding for commercial purposes such as these, than I would strongly recommend there be standards in place, if not just for the sake of lawsuits but also to be sure that only those of sound medical history are creating my perfect babies.

Cosmic said:

Relatedly, what would happen to those who bred without licenses? Their children be taken from them and put into foster care? Or with a creation of a law like this it's not too far out on a limb that children themselves need to be licensed and regulated. Much like the one child policy in China.

Click to expand...

Well, if this were a program that had actually been implemented, I'm sure we're talking about a fairly ass-backwards society with some interesting methods to prevent those deemed unworthy of passing their seed (ie, "voluntary" sterilization of those unable to meet the requirements for breeding). I'm just wondering what sort of happenings would take place for society to accept this sort of approach to childbearing.

I'd go with a system more like that in place for acquiring a driver's license--most people can get one, but you have to demonstrate knowledge.

I think a combination of taking a class, and some time spent with other people's kids in a supervised setting (kindergarten trip chaperone?) would suffice. This should be done as part of secondary education--some private schools used to do the tame version, the "taking care of the flour sack" thing, I don't know if they still do.

Also, I feel like sex ed needs to move beyond just teaching about abstinence. People are going to have sex, they need to know how to do so safely, and what to do if someone refuses to be safe about it. Teach them about rape/abuse hotlines and crisis centers, teach them how to use condoms properly, teach them about birth control, teach them not to mix sex and drugs/alcohol.

fig

figliaperduta said:

I'd go with a system more like that in place for acquiring a driver's license--most people can get one, but you have to demonstrate knowledge.

I think a combination of taking a class, and some time spent with other people's kids in a supervised setting (kindergarten trip chaperone?) would suffice. This should be done as part of secondary education--some private schools used to do the tame version, the "taking care of the flour sack" thing, I don't know if they still do.

Also, I feel like sex ed needs to move beyond just teaching about abstinence. People are going to have sex, they need to know how to do so safely, and what to do if someone refuses to be safe about it. Teach them about rape/abuse hotlines and crisis centers, teach them how to use condoms properly, teach them about birth control, teach them not to mix sex and drugs/alcohol.

fig

Click to expand...

This needs to be implemented anyways. Most kids nowadays are told, "Hey, don't do it," and start doing it at younger ages.

Apparently - according to a friend of my mom's who has young children - her daughter's school made the 10-12 year old girls in that grade [whatever grade that is. Probably 5th or 6th] watch a video that was almost pornographic in nature. Daughter came home crying and screaming about how she didn't, "want that stuff all over her." Her mom had no idea what she was talking about and went to the principle. The principle said, "Well, they are at that age where they are having sex. Might as well show them what it is."

That to me is a bit appalling, besides the fact that she was a minor and parental consent is always needed for movies like that and really any movie event.

But that was a bit off topic.

Anyways, could/should a licensing program be implemented? I would love to say yes, but there are those parents who would love to have children and are unable due to sterility and maybe even financial reasons and can't even adopt.

I feel like if such a program could come about, it would be way more complicated than simple tests or classes that someone would have to take in order to be a parent. Too many people in this country think that stability is only possible with people being married and with all the people who think that Gay/Les/Bi/Tranny parents can't be just as capable, there would be waaaaay too many more problems to think of.

I believe the limit in China is two children per couple. It has nothing to do with parents being fit or unfit though, but rather due to the severe overpopulation issue the country has.

I was talking to my mom about this yesterday and then I noticed this thread

I think forced sterilization should definitely be a form of punishment, especially for those who have neglected or abused children and have a history of related crimes.

I'm particularly passionate towards this concept because of my sister. Last week, she gave birth to her 8th kid. At least I think it's 9th... we've honestly lost count. Reason being is that years ago, she lost custody of all of her kids. And what does she do? She goes off and gets pregnant again, twice, claiming to want to start anew with a new family as if the 4 kids living with us (2 were put up for adoption) are just pieces of paper you can ball up and start all over again.

The first baby of the two new ones caused quite a bit of drama. CPS got involved more than once, she went through a selfish streak and gave partial custody to the biological father who was a homeless, jobless crackhead with a history of violence while she had a perfectly normal and moral man offering to play the role of the father. Why, we'll never know, but we know it was in spite of those who were ready to take in the baby in case she screwed up again, which she did.

And then she goes off and gets impregnated again by the same bum crackhead as before.

If you ask me, if you have children who are currently in custody of someone else, you should not be allowed to have children, and if you do, they should be taken away the second it comes out of the womb. If one has multiple accounts of neglect and a history like my sister... there should definitely be some forced sterilization.

While I will admit this is multi-faceted issue, I have to say that many of them are based around the societal construct we call "morality". But that's a different issue altogether, so I'll just let that drop. Regardless, yes, I think there should be some kind of regulation regarding who can breed and who can't; as much as it infringes on the rights of the people (at least in the eyes of the ACLU and other like-minded individuals), we've almost completely bypassed natural selection with modern medicine and allowed degenerate genes to implant themselves into our species (and if you really think about it, you'll see I'm right). Not to mention that certain practices by humans have become more prevalent (severe drug abuse, violent crimes, etc). Therefore in my eyes, something needs to be done.

And if I were the one to implement this program, here are some of the criteria I would operate it by:

1) Violent criminal - If a violent criminal is found to be guilty of the crime xe committed and repeats crime while on parole, or if violent criminal has an appellate court review and the court comes to the same conclusion, or if violent criminal repeats crime while on parole, xe is brought in for mandatory neutering/fixing

2) Drug addiction - If an individual is found to have been selling drugs or buying them without any apparent source of legal income, xe is given a minimum of two years to find stable, legal employment and certain forms of assistance would be provided to help reach that goal until it is deemed unnecessary. If by that time employment is not found and drug abuse is found to have continued, xe is brought in for mandatory neutering

3) Illegal alien - If an illegal alien is found to be residing within US borders and breeding, the parents are immediately hauled in for mandatory fixing. Then, after a period of recovery, they are immediately deported back to their native country.

4) Extended welfare stay - Same definition as "Jobless drug addict", except now if it is found that no attempts have been made to find employment while on public assistance programs and the people in question are found to be bearing children regardless, the people in question shall be brought in for mandatory neutering.


Like I said, these are just my thoughts on the whole process and how some of it should be run should it come to pass that we have this program in place. There are other issues to consider, as with all morally controversial topics such as this, but these are the ones I've been thinking about for some time.

Raz. You forget one very simple thing. If you do not champion those who breed without thought, you do not promote those things you speak against.

If the idiot that breeds without thought does not receive help, they will starve. Soon other idiots will realize that they can't breed without thought and live.

Soon, problems are solved by their own will to survive.

No license to breed, no rights violated.

A valid point, my friend; though I fail to see how it is I'm "championing" them, as you put it. What you're referring to would work if we let natural selection take its course, as it does in the natural world. Unfortunately, we humans seem to have an honorable (if ultimately self-destructive) tendency to preserve those idiots that breed without thought.

This goes back to your point of not helping them. Yes, they would indeed starve if we didn't help them and frankly, we would be the better for it. However, our current system doesn't seem to work that way; in fact, it seems to do the exact opposite. My hypothetical plan of action was meant to work in tandem with public assistance (AKA "providing assistance to those who need it, not giving the leeches and freeloaders a ride on the coat-tails of the hard-working taxpayer").

Though perhaps I am misinterpreting your statement; if I am, feel free to correct me.

But will idiots realize the folly of their ways? They're idiots, they may not realize what they're doing. Children shouldn't be victimized and forced to live such a trashy horrid life because of their parents poot choices. I'd rather abort than to bring a child in a life where I could not properly care and provide for the kid.

Just because I say "you" in a sentence does not mean that I am speaking directly to you. Its more of a, If it applies to you,,,, thing. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

And I do agree, there are people out there that do deserve to get help for one reason or another. Though there are other ways of helping them.

They may be idiots, but once they start getting hungry they will either smarten up, or starve. Yes, I know it sounds cold and I want everyone to be able to grow up and live productive, fruitful lives. Though as long as they are able to have their cars with rims, internet access and fridge full of food they won't. when their kids grow up and look back on the life they had to live, they will be more likely to try to succeed.

My parents are counted amongst those who you would not give this breeding license to. They weren't all that bright, and scraped by when I was younger. I must of inherited brains and a strong work ethic from a distant relative, cause I managed to turn myself into a productive member of society. Had I been able to live a "comfortable" childhood where my parents were able to get most of what they wanted without working, I might not have realized that if I wanted nice things that I would have to work hard for them. But instead we had virtually nothing and only made it day to day on the good graces of neighbors.

Its not that it sounds cold, it just sounds unrealistic and too good to be true to say that starving will force people to straighten up their act. There are exceptions to the rule, you just may be one of them, but I've grown up around a lot of "white trash" people who you might say were in that situation, and they most certainly haven't learned from their family's mistakes and their own.

My friends family is genuinely needy. They got about 6 people living in their home with little income. They get food stamps but still, that only does so much for food when your family is decently sized. His parents got a settlement check of $6,000 for an accident. Now, in any realistic and smart situation, a needy family would use that money wisely. Use it on something they need, buy groceries, pay some bills, etc. Nope. They blew it, all of it. My sisters ex husband grew up in one of these homes where supposedly people will have no choice but to get smart or starve. What did he learn from this? Start breaking into peoples homes, pawn them, sell them, profit, blow it on booze and drugs. Parents aren't always an example of what NOT to do, they can just as much instill their lifestyle within their own children, an thats what happened in his case. I lived with my sister for awhile who blew all of her money on drugs. Food was so scarce I wasn't even allowed to eat. I had to keep boxes of poptarts hidden under my bed. Her kids hardly ate either, and eventually CPS was called on my sister and now my parents have custody of all of her kids. She got pregnant again a year later and lost custody of that one, and now, even after being jobless for years, and the shit she went through with the other 5 kids, she honestly thought it was okay to go ahead and have 2 more.

I've stood in line for Toys for Tots and seen some of the moms in those lines. Designer clothing, hair done up nicely (probably cost her at least $20), nails done (another $20 probably), nice shoes... standing in line for charity of all things. With the money that bitch spent on her outfit, she could've probably made her family a holiday meal or gotten her kids what toys for tots was giving her.

Plenty of people live their lives without getting their priorities straight, and yeah, that means even hardly eating. The government would likely step in and take the kids before any damage could be done. Then there'd be more children in the system.

The issue with your scenario is that those "white trash" families that you speak of are still getting free goodies. Most state provided food stamps run anywhere from six hundred to twelve hundred dollars a month. A family of six should eat pretty well on that so please don't say its not that much.

One of the guys I used to employ got stamps for his four person family, they ate steak, short ribs, and chicken three to four nights a week.

Those programs vary per state... I lived in VA, and when we got food stamps, we didn't receive that much. We'd have family friends bringing us leftovers from their dinners, and my best friends family would invite me over for dinner about once a week. My family gets food stamps in MI now and the amount my family receives from this state is a lot more than we did in Virginia. We can eat much more comfortably, but we can't go crazy. We certainly aren't eating steak and ribs. Unless its on sale for ridiculously cheap.

And it all depends on who you can claim in your household. Just because you got a lot of people living in your house, it doesn't mean they will provide you for that many. If you're 18 or older they may consider you an independent even if you are actually dependent. My parents couldn't claim me as a dependent when filing for such benefits even though they were still claiming me on their taxes, and I was a student. They said if I personally wanted food stamps, I'd have to apply on my own.

There is also the possibility of mistakes in the system and it is the people's responsibility to bring it up. We knew a family of 5 that was better set off financially than we were yet they received nearly double of what we received in food stamps. They shrugged it off and though "Ah well, more for us!" But if its too good to be true, it probably is.

If I may ask. If not I understand, I don't want to get too personal. But how much would you imagine that your family brings home a month?

I ask because poor is not what it used to be. Back in the day poor meant you had no AC, TV, a POS car, and likely didnt have the fuel to drive it.

But now the average poor family has at least one car that is less than ten years old and drives plenty. They have cable TV, internet, and most are obese. Meaning they have plenty to eat.

I am not saying that the above is you. And It is not meant to be a slight against you.

Ive been poor. I know what its like. But when I was poor I didnt waste money on the niceties like a computer, internet, booze, etc. I went without those things and saved, made smart decisions. And now that Ive dug myself out of that hole I am punished for my success. No I am not rich. I still work an hourly job to take up the slack from poor sales from the bad economy. But if I weren't being punished for my success I could focus more on the life Ive been building though sweat and tears, could hire people again, and expand which would in turn hire more people, or pay those people more. But instead I have nearly forty percent of my earnings taken by force. So you will have to forgive me for not feeling sorry for those who havent made good decisions during the course of their lives.

Please note, I am not talking about the family that made wise decisions, invested smartly, didn't breed without thinking, and didn't go out to get that new big screen every time a new one came out, but through circumstance found themselves in a pickle.

I'd say about $2,500 tops. My dad is a part time janitor, and my mom is on disability (she has been trying to look for a job but hasn't had luck). Total, there are 7 people in the household. We get about $700 a month in food stamps.

We may not have been homeless, but we were on the needier side of the spectrum. And I never really called my family poor in the first place, we've just always had financial troubles with our size and my parents troubled finding jobs. As long as we budget and drop some things, we're okay. We don't go on trips, we aren't picky with our food... demanding it be organic or anything because those types tend to be more expensive, we get all of our clothing (amongst other things) at the thrift store, we don't have cellphone plans (but we do use pre-paid phones for emergencies), we don't have ipods, iphones, or ipads, or any gadgets like that. No one in my family drinks, no one smokes, and we we don't go out to eat. Basically, we don't get out much unless its to go to the lake, which is free.

I don't mind people receiving help, but still, I honestly don't think forcing people to starve and taking their benefits away is going to force them to make better choices. Stupid people can simply be stupid people. That's why I'm for drug testing for welfare and sterilization as punishment, to make sure those who truly do need this stuff and won't take it for granted receive the help they need.

Just today I was at school trying to buy my text books only to find out that my financial aid won't cover all of my stuff. Meanwhile, there's people in the book store buying useless shit like $40 pairs of headphones because the government has handed them some extra money to pay for books and supplies because the government deemed them needy. I appreciate my education tremendously, and I've cried over my desire to just be able to afford classes, but how many of these people are going to use their education? How many of them are going to even graduate? It's like Idiocracy. Stupidity breeds stupidity. Not to mention, people today are too self entitled and vain that they practically see vanity and materialism as necessities.

Like I said earlier, there are people that honestly need and should receive help. But the ones that literally have kids just so they can get more money, and the able bodied that refuse to work? No, not one dime.

People talk about it just hurting the kids and putting them into the system. That is true, more kids will be placed into the system. However, if you rework the way adoptions take place, you will see a great many of those children placed in good homes.

My partner's parents were fairly well off, they tried for several decades to adopt. But the process was insane. Finally they were able to adopt her brother. It took another decade to adopt her, and when they tried to adopt a third they were told no. They were too old. That kind of thing happens every day. That is what keeps children in the system.

I can't speak to having seven people with only earning twenty five hundred a month, and I don't know what the cost of living is like where you are. I know the economy is bad, and that makes it hard to find jobs. I understand that. But there are still things that can be done to better the quality of life they are living without relying on the government. And Im not speaking solely to your situation. You seem to be trying to better yourself. Im just speaking generally.

Are all four of the others that live with you your brothers or sisters? Family? I ask because if not, then why are they there and not contributing? If so, why are they not contributing?

I started working under the table when I was ten. Even going to school I made between three and eight hundred a month (less when I was younger, more when I was able to do more).

I did everything from picking up poop in neighbors yards, mowing grass, washing cars, to stacking hay. Shoveling snow. Whatever put money in our pockets but didn't clash with my morals. It didn't matter if it was a dollar, or a twenty. I'd pick up soda cans along the highway. Heck, I even picked up stray wires I found on the side of the road, and after a time had enough copper to take to the scrap yard.

Once I was old enough to work a taxable job I made slightly less. With seven people in the home they should be able to make several thousand more a month which would put you all in a better place. With a full load in college I still worked anywhere from forty to sixty hours a week. Yeah it sucked, but I wouldn't be where I am now if I didn't.

These are things that everyone can do. And if they really want to better their situation they will.

Yeah the system would be nice if more family's would adopt kids and teenagers. It's not just babies being taken out of homes, it's kids, and teenagers, and they're the most accumulative. These kids are the bigger issue... many of them are so traumatized by their situations that they develop personality and behavior issues, and many family's they end up with do not keep them for too long. A lot of kids are cycled through homes and eventually age out with no direction of where to go. Babies are easier to deal with, and thus are easier to adopt. Not to mention, there are some family's that are kid mills. They just take in the kids for the money the government gives them for taking in kids, and then proceed to neglect and abuse them. This is sadly more common than it should be. More idiots taking advantage of the government. This is why my parents took in my sister's kids when she and her husband were neglecting and abusing them. Which worked out fine because they were planning on becoming foster parents after I graduated.

Those other 4 other people in my home are my sisters kids. We've had them for a little over 8 years now. So that's why they aren't contributing. They're just kids, and we're a household that believes a kids job is to go to school and learn. You may have started working at the age of 10, but my parents never wanted to burden the kids in any way. My oldest nephew wasn't even going to school when he was with his parents even though he was supposed to be. His dad would make him and the second oldest do work around the house and even come to work with him. I don't know where you live, but in the state we lived in, it is illegal to keep a child out of any sort of credited education from age 5 to 18. The kids were put through so much with their parents that my parents just want to give them as normal of a life as possible. They don't want to make them have to walk around and pick up cans and bottles to go turn in at the recycling center for money (though we do do that when we happen to have cans and bottles) because if it weren't for us, they'd probably be doing that while their dad spent his food stamp money on booze and chips, not caring if they were in school or not. The oldest one, my 15 year old nephew, mows lawns, and my parents have the kids volunteer at soup kitchens to give back to the community for the things we have been given and to remind them that even though we may not have fancy stuff like their friends, we could be worse off.

Sure, we may not be up to your standard as poor, but again, I didn't define my family as poor. We are considered needy to the government, and we are grateful to the assistance we've received from the government and organizations.

Though I do think this is getting a little off topic and sounding a little more like a lecture directed towards me on my family's lifestyle.

My point still stands. Forcing people to starve won't make them work harder. They would likely just sit around and bitch about the injustices in the world. 'Only the wealthy and privileged get this and that'. Stupid stuff like that. We live in a world that no matter what our class, people desire the finer things in life, and will try their best to replicate that, be it wearing a fancy brand of clothing despite living in a shack, or driving a BMW even though you're thousands in debt. And then on top of that, it's in so many people's nature to blame everything but themselves. No one wants to accept that its their fault their life is the way it is. They will reach for any crutch they can just to convince themselves they're a victim of society. A lot of people are just plain stupid. I don't think its solely because of government assistance, nor can it be solved solely by cutting them off.

That's why theories like forced sterilization exist. If they're going to act like a child, you gotta treat them like a child and that doesn't necessarily mean holding their hands, it more so means doing drastic shit such as dictating what they're capable of in life (like having kids) because they obviously aren't thinking logically.