Should there be a license to breed?
A license to breed may sound ludacris but think about it for a second. Should a test be passed before a couple should be able to breed children into this society? My teacher made a joke regarding this so I felt like bringing it up.
Side Score: 39
Side Score: 22
I believe that it could be a possibility. I mean who wants these people that are complete idiots breeding other idiots into this society ( I am not talking about mentally ill people )? Maybe have an income limit so the gov. knows that they are going to be able to support a baby, an age limit, and also location which kind of ties into income.
1855 days ago | Side: yes
Fair point... but how will it be enforced? Jail time for those parents who have unlicensed pregnancies?... oh wait that will be punishing the baby way more than the parents...
I have no quarrels with your arguments about trying to limit the amount of babies born into poverty etc. But putting a license on breeding is a preposterous idea that wont work in reality.
1855 days ago | Side: No
Their would be no ' accidents ' ruining childrens lives. It could simply be inforced that men must wear condoms and women take birth control pills. It would be quite easy to enforce just like a police officer enforces the law that says people that do not have their licenses cannot drive. Can you tell at a glance? No will they eventually get caught? Yes. I somewhat agree with duncer on his ' pregnant woman ramble ' only on the part about pregnant women thing up to the officer asking the woman where her license was and if she has none, then the baby is taken into a home until the mother has her license OR the man has his license. What do you think about that ?
1850 days ago | Side: yes
This can definately be enforced by giving all male births a vasectomy at birth and all female births a tubal ligation at birth. These procedures can easily be reversed when they come to age and are granted the license to breed. This would work in reality and if something is not done soon this world will come to an end.
1111 days ago | Side: yes
Baby steps. We already license for cars, so it's obviously possible that we can create a system that supports individually focused mandatory testing. Babies can be aborted, tubes can be tied, the ability to reproduce can be removed and the baby can be put up for adoption. Normally that would be a terrible thing, but in a world where breeding laws are enforced, orphans will be in high demand in order to meet the demand of parents wanting larger families. People are going to react badly to this kind of concept, but anyone looking down the road at the ridiculously horrifying future of Overpopulated Earth will agree that reducing the population in anyway, especially by keeping bad parents from breeding or from raising kids, is vastly preferable and necessary.
397 days ago | Side: Yes
I'll copy and paste something I posted on another site (kind of as a joke, but kind of not.)
i know it will never happen, but i've come up with a really simple solution, probably lots of people have had this same thought, but i'll say it anyway.
humans need to be fixed.
that is at birth, or some time before pueberty, just tie the tubes or whatever. today we can reverse these types of procedures . . .
so at the age of 25, if you want kids, you take an IQ test.
now since we are overpopulated, say you need to be a little above average to be allowed 1 kid, someone really smart 2, and geniuses 3. these numbers can be changed depending on the needs of society.
kinda confusing here, since it still takes 2 people for the most part, you'd have to take the average, so genius chick = 3 + above average dude = 1. this couple gets 2 kids.
the genius chick could hook up with some other guy, and have one more kid, but the dudes stuck with what he has. see it's kinda fun, because dumb people don't get math so easy, they wouldn't even know where to start, but if GG=genius girl, AD = average dude, and throw in SD, smart dude, who gets 2 kids.
GG + AD divided by 2 = 2 kids. the new value of GG = 1. this GG later falls in love with SD. GG + SD = 3 divided by 2 . . . well, you can't have 1.5 kids, so they can obviously only have 1. but the smart guy may have another with some other girl at a later time if he chooses.
cool huh, i like it
i know, people will bitch and moan about all kinds of this and that, about wanting kids and they're precious and the future, and even god's intention,
the fact is, there's just too many fucking people. there's so many people, that some people starve to death because there's not enough food, there's not enough land for all the people, and all kinds of things like trees that produce oxygen and animals are dying off
and now, with the polar ice caps melting there's soon to be even less room for all these people
this will lead to wars, and more starvation
and people just keep having fucking kids
one of the stupidest people i've ever met, probably legally retarded, wants 10 kids, he's reached 33.33333333 percent of his objective already, and no amount of reason will deter him, because he doesn't understand reason, just basic human instinct
this needs to stop, truely i find it disgusting
1852 days ago | Side: yes
Enforcement of such a license wouldn't be so hard if there was public medicine. The methods that comes easiest to my mind would be if all hospitals were required to check for pregnancy preliminarily before treatment, or if females were required to consent to a pregnancy test before being allowed treatment, like consenting to a breathalyzer if you're suspected of being a drunk driver, and possibly to go so far as detaining an unlicensed individual if an abortion wasn't consented to right then and there. However, in a true democracy this would only be possible I believe if abortion was universally accepted(at least among elected officials), commonplace and the health-care system in place at the time was heavily socialized. But giving hospitals the authority to detain people, and administer abortions by force is an exceeding disturbing idea to me at least, images of Hitler and Co. come to mind. Hopefully, it will never have to come to that. But on the other hand would it be better if the ecosystem was destroyed by overpopulation and unchecked economic expansion?
1394 days ago | Side: Yes
The world is massively overpopulated and we have no illusions that global resources, both renewable and finite, can long support 6+ billion people. The average 1st world human being ignores the problem, because it does not directly affect them in their day to day life. The rest of the world suffers from a lack of food, fresh water, medicine, technology, gasoline, etc... Yet the US is still sitting at an enormous % of it's enormous population being obese. Everyone has to have one, often two, cars which are huge wastes of pollution spewing metal and plastic, used to drive kids to school or go to the store; in pre-1950's people car pooled, they walked, they planned ahead and had communities to rely on. Now we have far too many people and the rich countries have left their citizens feeling entitled to living like kings compared to the billions living like slaves. No one is entitled to that.
It's obvious that humanity is not responsible enough to be left to it's own devices. We're selfish, greedy and impulsive. Children are dieing of starvation and myriad diseases that could be prevented if they just had fresh, clean water and basic sanitation. First world countries have an epidemic of unwanted children who spend the first 15-18 years many run away of their lives in orphanages. Yet, we still have no laws, no precursors even, regarding bringing new life into this world. In what way does this world need new blood when children are suffering in a system that is underfunded and constantly having their funds cut and in a world where there aren't enough would be parents to adopt them?
Roughly 50% of food in markets and farms goes to waste. Tens to hundreds of millions of tons of blemished vegetables are thrown away at harvest, bruises and little cuts during shipping make market produce unsellable and the huge amount of food that just doesn't get bought, because there's not enough people to buy it, all goes to waste. We don't need half the food that we have available to us, so about 75% of the total potential food, in North America / the UK at least, could have gone to people around the world who would literally kill for any food at all, because their children have hunger distended bellies and sharp, jutting bones barely covered by skin, just like them.
It's obvious that this planet is going to face hellish times if we don't push for sanity and reason soon; hundreds of millions of people would say we're already facing such times. No one has the right to think themselves entitled to do whatever the hell they want when it makes other people suffer. The majority of the human beings on Earth live in poverty and increasingly bad conditions. First world citizens can't imagine that, though, what with us having plenty that we do not need, things that could save lives, should we choose to share. That's not something people with practically nothing can even say, because for them, giving up some of their food to feed a stranger in need isn't sharing...it's sacrifice.
Humanity requires a much smaller population in order to survive, but the majority want their blood lines to continue, so everyone should be able to have one child of their own genetic lineage. If they get divorced from the partner they bred with then they can not have another child with another spouse, unless their child dies. One new life brought into the world and, if you want more, then adoption agencies from around the world can fill that need. Skin colour does not matter, if you think it does then you do not deserve to breed as no child deserves to be raised by fools.
Tests for parenting capabilities will have to be put in place and taken every few years. We have to get tested and retested to drive a car, but not to raise children? The world sees far too many horrifically bad, even evil, parents NOT to address this as a preventable problem. Besides, with the influx of information and technology that we've seen in the past fifty years or so, it's insane to think any parent is naturally capable of correctly raising a child anymore. We can no longer rely on our instincts. TV teaches 21st century children from as early as possible, then they learn to read and the internet opens up to them, the ideas and lessons their friends and sibling share with them are radical and drastically mutating much faster than the any generation of humanity has ever seen. The children of today don't react well to parenting techniques of old and parenting instincts often do more harm than good.
Humanity has never had education on so many myriad, often subtle, levels, from the earliest years of childhood onwards. Kids quickly become more like hyperactive / emotionally inexperienced young adults then the obedient little burden of yesteryear. Where do they fit in the world and in their parent's eyes? Treat them like kids and they might take offense, give them responsibility and they'll probably feel punished. This is no longer a world where parents can act without forethought and understanding. It should not be a world where they are expected to do so without some legal structure making sure they can hack it.
Adopt or face the numerous terrors of a world stretched thin on food, fresh water, gas, medicine, etc... After all, billions of people already do. 21st century man is a natural disaster happening very, very slowly. We definitely need to start changing the legal perspectives on human rights from the incredibly selfish to a tenable balance with global needs as well as individual rights.
P.S. With the cramped, overpopulated conditions of the world and the ease / frequency of traveling ANYWHERE in the world, it is amazing that we haven't seen a disease as easily transmitted and fatal as Small Pox step up. Yet. All it would take is one person in one town and an incubation period of 2-3 days and the disease would move beyond our ability to control it. We already know that Small Pox still exists in many government labs and is being weaponized bred and manipulated so it will mutate into a strain that the Small Pox vaccine cannot protect against. 2-3 individual cells is all it takes to infect a host, 2-3 weeks to incubate. By the time the first symptoms appear most of the civilized world would be infected. There's too many people and we have no defenses in place for this kind of scenario. Let's start taking steps towards living in balance with the planet, each other and the other animals on Earth.
397 days ago | Side: Yes
You are on the wrong side. If there was a license to breed would there not be abortion? All babies would not be accidental and hey I am not saying it is going to happen or that it could even be enforced I am just curious what people think. And no I did not down vote you.
1852 days ago | Side: yes
-How would it be enforced?
-That would mean you would need a license to have sex.
-Talk about a waste of vital government funds and time.
-What purpose could this possibly serve?
-How would we decide who would be allowed to breed and who wouldnt?
-This is very similar to Hitler's ragimes to wipe out the Jews form Germany, only targetting idiots instead... When we really need to be addressing why these people are stupid in teh first place. If its genetics, then who are we to discriminate people based on birth defects outside of their control?
Then entire idea of a license to breed is ridiculously stupid..
The only way to enforce this would to somehow check people have a license to breed before they have sex... which would mean some sort of survelliance or police men in the bedrooms... but wait you can have sex pretty much anywhere, so you would have to implant a chip to make sure when people get horny they have their license... but wait thats ridiculous.
1855 days ago | Side: No
Not necessarily a license to have sex a license to have unprotected sex.
It would serve to cut down on abortions and the fact that most teenagers that have babies mess up their college dreams since they can no longer afford to take care of a baby AND go to school especially with the boyfriends bailing out on them. It would also cut down on the overflow of babies being sent to adoption agencies.
Waste of gov. funds? Giving 700 billion dollars to banks without tracing the money to see what they have and are doing with it is a waste of gov funds.
A test that would show your parenting skills.Take a course to pass it or just read the manual like your getting your drivers license.
Purpose mainly being having parents that are able to bring up a child. Making sure that the parents have enough income to support a baby, making sure that they are lets say over the age of 18, making sure they know how to raise a baby. Cutting down on abortions, and how is this a regime anywhere near close to Hitlers? What I am saying is educate people on how to raise children instead of having shadow boxers raise them ( people that do not have a clue ). Lets educate the idiots so they can raise their children in a proper manner.
1850 days ago | Side: yes
I've heard of this as a joke before, but I think that it should be considered.
This particular debate, though, causes a battle in my mind between this idea and my basic core value, the government keeping away from the individual's business. The very idea that the government would regulate who does and does not qualify to have a child is sickening to the one side, but the idea that fewer to no children would have to be raised by idiot parents, becoming idiots themselves because their parents fail at their number one job, sounds pretty good.
I don't know which side rests heavier on my conscience, so therefore I cannot post on "Yes," but I must post on "No," simply to express my feeling of utter and complete "belief confusion." (Give me credit for that phrase!)
1855 days ago | Side: No
At first it sounds like a good idea, but it couldn't work.
First of all, banning unprotected sex sounds like a great idea, especially with teen pregnancies being high. But if all teenagers were on birth control and not allowed to raise a child because it's the law, that would completely take away the fear of ending up with a baby... what do you think would happen then? Teens (and other adults) would have one less reason to take part in abstinence, which would likely spread STD's like wildfire.
Also, what if the birth control failed? What would happen if someone ended up pregnant without a license? That would probably mean forced abortion or forced adoption.
There is also the question: Who decides if someone deserves to raise a child or not? There's obvious qualifications like age, mental stability, and maybe a violent record check (to see if parental abuse would be likely). But some of the arguments I read were about stopping the reproduction of idiots. As much as I LOVE that idea, can we really deny someone the right to have a child based on their IQ level? On that note, who gets to decide on whether someone is worthy to be a parent or not? There could be a test, but who makes that test? There is really no "right" way to raise a child. Sure, there are accepted practices and not-so-popular ones, but all in all, parenting is a tough job and there will be mistakes made no matter how qualified one is.
Reproducing is an instinctive, basic human right. Having the government regulate who gets to have children and who doesn't is absolutely ridiculous.
481 days ago | Side: No
Sure, let's start licensing people to breed. It'll be simple, we'll just begin the screening process at the first sign of puberty and if the kid doesn't pass muster we'll forcibly sterilize him or her. If he or she does then we'll issue him or her a breeders license which he or she will have to renew every year until he or she achieves his or her child quota at which point we'll forcibly sterilize him or her to keep the population in check. Sounds like a good plan to me!
1849 days ago | Side: No