wickerman

I've read Quinn's books and they are well worth the time.

I'd also be for some form of licensing to have children. We have to be licensed to drive a car, carry a firearm, practice medicine or just about anything else that can harm another person if you do it improperly but any idiot can have a child and screw it up as much as they want to.

TheFeniX

And take away a woman's right to do with her body what she wants? What are the criteria for the license? Monetary? Ethnicity? Habits?

We already have measures in place to stop child abuse. Now you want to make it a criminal act to bear a child? How do you regulate it? Oh wait, Suzy and Jenny got pregnant while still in high school. Can't get an abortion from a licensed doctor because then they'd go to jail. But wait, Suzy's parents are well off and can afford to pay a doctor to give her a medicine for "feminine problems" which happens to also abort babies.

Jenny has no money for that so: Yay for back ally abortions and straighted coat-hangers!

Or we could just say that the problem isn't that simple and we should think more into it.

Cars, guns, and medicine are all tools that you must be taught how to use. Raising a child is a natural in-born ability in all animals. Denying somone that right based on artifical criteria is a horribly bad idea.

__________________

Pokerface

For a natural in-born ability, a lot of people suck at it horribly. Dogbert devised a written test to "weed out the major bozos" because being a parent required "a few body parts and a brain the size of a garbonzo bean", which is wholly true.

Parenting isn't something to be stepped into lightly, and just because we have the ability to bear children -- much like we have the ability to step on a gas pedal or pull a trigger -- doesn't mean that we should, at least not without proving we can be responsible about it. Raising a child correctly is something that you LEARN, and for most (myself included) it's learning as you go.

Imagine if guns worked like that... "well, you're 13 and can work your finger. Here's a gun... come back when you're good with it."

Man, if there's one thing you'd think we as a society WOULDN'T wank f***ed all to hell, you'd think it'd be the raising of children.

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

TheFeniX

You completely missed the point of my arguement.

1. Guns and driving are a horrible analogy to child rearing. A gun is a weapon designed to kill people and other living things. Cars are a mode of transportation. Neither are in-born rights to a living being. Reproduction is one.

An untrained person driving a car or handling a loaded gun is a danger no matter what. An "untrained" person raising a child is not. To assume education, money, or ethnicity can make or break a parent/child is stupid. Rich parents have bad kids, poor parents have good kids and vice-versa.

A test/license to bear children is no different than "Poll Tax" laws. It's only meant to keep a certain class/race of citizen down.

2. No Regulation (I can't believe I have to explain this again): Listen to this, You can't regulate something people possess that God gave them. They tried this before with banning abortion, and denying condoms to underage kids. All it does is put these kids in danger. They will have sex and they will get pregnant. You can only make it as safe as possible for them.

The laws you propose will only screw the poor minorities. We've tried it before and it doesn't work. We're forced to take the lesser of two evils. That's life.

EDIT: I apologize for the wording of this post. I'm not belittling you poker, but in retrospect I'm being harsh. I'm just very adamant about this issue because with laws like those being thought up by politicans, the only people who get hurt are ignorant kids.

__________________

Pokerface

It's OK, belittle me, because while I understand your lust for freedom, I happen to think you're wrong.

I haven't done the official math, but I'd say an untrained person raising a child is presently about a zillion times worse than an untrained person wielding a firearm. An untrained person can put a gun down, at least, and the gun won't go on to fire wantonly, continuing a pattern throughout the ages.

Sure it's exclusionary; that's kind of the point. We have social service people look at deadbeat dads and junkie moms and say "you're not fit to be a parent, so we're taking your kids" all the time; why not just back the process up a few years, and save everyone the time, money, and hassle that comes with letting any old crackwhore reproduce?

IIRC, China had a pretty popular (as in well-known, not as in well-liked) reproductive law in place that seemed to work.

Actually, the way I'm envisioning it, the laws I'm proposing would screw people that exhibit signs that they would beat and/or abandon their child. That's a segment of the population I'm all for screwing.

How are kids being hurt by a process that ensures that there's someone around to raise them? Better yet, how are kids better served by the lack of such a process? You lost me on this one.

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

wickerman

Exactly!

You're not harming kids if their would-be crappy parents never have the chance to make them. A law governing who could reproduce would PREVENT neglect.

Reproduction is a biological ability, NOT a right. Just because you CAN reproduce doesn't mean you SHOULD. I could perform brain surgery (meaning I'm biologically capable of slicing open your skull and tinkering around) but I don't have the necessary training so it's something I SHOULDN'T be allowed to do. Same with child rearing.

You completely missed the analogy but bring up an interesting point. Both driving and firing a weapon are things we're BIOLOGICALLY capable of doing that are regulated because the act of doing them incorrectly could cause damage to another person. Same with child rearing.

Irrelevant to the argument because that makes the assumption you believe in a god, there's another thread about that topic.


How? I never made the assumption that minorities would be unfairly targeted or the majority of those affected by a law regulating child birth. You did.

I never said that the law would pertain only to women, why would you assume that? A man could just as easily be deemed unfit to be a father.

Hardly. We continue to see evidence in the way of pedophiles and abusive parents that child rearing is not necessarily instinctive.

Denying someone the right to create and subsequently mistreat another human being is a horribly GOOD idea. They check me at the shelter before I can adopt a dog and they screen prospective adoptive parents but any smack head with working equipment can produce a child that can then be neglected and abused.

jex

I say let's have it like logans run - when your 30 that's it - Ooh crap!

__________________
Jex

TheFeniX

1. Subjective opinion: you provide no evidence that a gun is more dangerous than an "untrained" parent. All you have is your own unsubstantiated opinion.
2. Define "trained" parent. Are we talking a weekend class, then you get a license? Are we talking you need to make X dollars a year to be considered "trained?"
It's completely subjective and that's where the fault lies. That and it's a veiled right-wing "screw the poor and minorities" arguement.

Because it's not your place to decide who is fit and who isn't. Your law has dangerous undertones in it's supposed "moral" covering. These crack whores are still going to have kids, you can't stop them.

Now you're talking arresting people for procreating, then what? Force a hysterectomy? Massive invasive surgery that leaves horrible scars and the cost falls on the tax payer for the rest of that person's life (Hormone medication). Or castrate the father and have the same thing happen?

Better idea! Why don't we just take them out back and shoot them, because we all know crack-heads and deadbeats aren't real people. So, we can violate their bodies and we'll call it social progression!

The Chinesse murder peaceful protesters by shooting them point-blank in the face. Worst... example... ever...


No, it screws the poor and the minorities: no one else. It wouldn't stop the rich dad who beats his wife and kids because he paid the 300 bucks to get a license.

Man you are being naive. Do you even remember the 70's when abortion was illegal? I wasn't even alive but I know about the horrors of back alley abortions.

That is so..... nevermind.

Ex: Teenager gets pregnant. She and her boyfriend are now criminals because they don't have this license. Options are as follows:
1. She gets an abortion (which would also be illegal because she would be a fugitive).
A. She's got money, doctor gives her the abortion pill (see above post).
B. She has no money, goes to a back-alley abortionist (or God forbid grabs a coat-hanger): gets the abortion done. Risks secondary infection and death because she can't go to a real hospital because any first year med student could detect an abortion.

2. She and her boyfriend get arrested, go to jail, she looses the baby anyways. Then the kid gets raised by the foster care system. Wow, talk about someone to raise them.

Your arguement is really just a de-evolved anti-abortion arguement. You would set back society 200 hundred years because you don't like the pain that comes with societal growth.

__________________

Wolfie

The solution would be to make irresponsible parents to step up and take responsibility for their actions. It was once suggested to make irresponsible parents give back to society (like donating time to charities and such) since society is raising their kid for them.

TheFeniX

Define "irresponsible."

The problem is that these suggestions are so vague they allow for so many abuses, it makes them worthless.

You may find giving a child unrestricted access to the Internet is irresponsible, I may say different. People would claim not baptising you kid is irresponsible. Different children react differently to different stimuli. There is no catch-all.

A gun: If you're a felon, no handguns. You have to be 18 to own a rifle/shotgun.
A car: Must be 16 to get a license. Laws in place to protect you and other motorists.
Alcohol: if you're above .08, you are impared no matter what you think your tolerance is.

These are clean-cut are clearly defined laws that protect society. That's what makes them good.

Give kid car keys:
1. may act responsibly for the great gift you have given him.
2. may thinks it's his right and destroy it.
3. may hate it and try to destroy it to get a new one.
4. innumerable other options.

Cars and guns react to stimuli in a set way. A human being does not. To try and say C is the right way to raise a kid is just.... well, I'll just say I'm surprised that I'm the one being called arrogant on this forum.

__________________

Wolfie

How about not bringing a child into this world if you can't afford to take care of it? That sounds like an irresponsible parent to me.

TheFeniX

Still ambiguous. Define "take care."

Is it, food and clothing only? Cell Phone? Car? Allowance? What's the cut-off point? Some people would consider keeping a kid in clothes and fed "taking care." Some would say buying them a Viper is "taking care."

Many parents who can afford kids are not good parents. The beat their kids, molest them, emotionally damage them and a score of other things. This is not limited to crack-whores and dead-beats. My brother is a dead-beat (by my standards), but he's a good father and loves his kids. Does that mean my personal standards should apply to him? If so why? And whose standards apply to whom?

Saying X money = good parent does not a good argument make.

__________________

leejo

Let the rich eat the poor's babies as a delicacy: Problem solved.

Jonathan Swift had it all figured out.

Wolfie

Basic necessities can be easily agreed on. While people can argue about cell phones, is anyone going to argue that not providing enough food for the kid to survive is not considered irresponsible?

If I don't feed my kid and let them starve, I would be a terrible parent. Why is it any different if society steps in and pays for my kid's food, especially if I knew before I had the kid that I couldn't pay for his food?

Fait_Maker

While I don't agree with licensing child-birth, I have to say that I've never understood someone not wanting to make something against the law simply for the fact of what the person, now a criminal, may do to get around the law. People make choices and have to be accountable for their choices. It's really that simple.

Should we not make bank robbery a crime because the person <we'll call them the victim> may have to get into a gun fight with police officers to get away; and in doing so, he may be shot and killed?

Also, richer people get to do many things I that I don't get to simply because they have money. That's not a bad thing. I don't think we should make decisions based upon your thought-pattern here.

__________________