Should People Need a Permit to Raise a Child? - Page 2

Werewolf Girl, serious question -- are you pro-choice? Because I can't see how someone can think that a woman should have the right to determine what happens to her body when it comes to terminating a pregnancy but not when it comes to starting one.

I find your ideas compelling, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously, though.

Werewolf Girl, are you forgetting the many parents who raise their children the right way? You seem to be looking at it from the wrong angle. For all these failures, there are quite a few success stories.

It's not the people you hate, but their lack of parenting skill sets.

35 years ago, when I stepped on my dick and did stupid things, my dad beat seven shades of shit out of me. Yes, it sucked... but it taught me that there is a price to pay for fucking up.

Do people do that nowadays? Did that crackhead with a grocery cart catch hell from Ma and Pa when she dicked up? Unlikely. She probably sat in "time-out".

When my kids messed up, they caught plu-perfect hell for it. Did that make me an unfit father? I don't believe so. Granted, it tore me up inside to punish my kids in that way, but it worked. Today, my son is two semesters away from a mathematics degree, and my daughter was recently just accepted at Brown.

What the psychologists fail to understand is that pain, or the fear of pain, is the greatest behavior modifier in history. Failure to remember that simple axiom, and you get the end result in people like the grocery cart crackhead.

I know that you will retort with the inevitable "does the ends justify the means" comment... but I think I did alright by my kids. They will earn more, accomplish more, and in the end... be more than I could ever hope to be.

Government intervention, in the end, is nothing more than another way of pushing off another bit of responsibility onto people who are in the end, completely and totally indifferent. Throwing money at the problem will not make it go away, nor will creating laws that most people will ignore.

At it's best, intervention is flawed and sporadic. At it's worst... well, it's not something I would care to contemplate.

That's probably because people do not possess a fundamental and inalienable right to operate heavy machinery whereas people, at least in the United States, do have the fundamental and inalienable right to have children. It falls under the penumbra of the individual's right to privacy.

For those of you advocating child limits, what do you propose for those that are having multiples?

And, do we abandon fertility research because it increases the chances of multiple births (octo-mom aside)? Or just say that infertile people have no rights to children?

It's not that we can't talk about this subject (though, I agree that it's political suicide). It's that we shouldn't even contemplate it.

Also, given the Nazi history of forced sterilization and fertility research, this thread is kinda un-Godwinnable. The association is a valid example to examine.

Some people believe that having kids creates a sacred bond between themselves and their imaginary creators, and that it's their spiritual duty to spawn. Since this behavior is reinforced by the government at tax time, it creates a situation where the dumbest people in the country are having as many kids as possible.

My parents never used corporal punishment, but maybe it's because they knew I wouldn't respond well to beatings.

Never stopped my dad.

There technically isn't a specifically stated right to privacy anywhere in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment can be read to imply a right to privacy, but nowhere is it explicitly stated.

Now you could come at it from the religious angle. Telling someone they can't follow the tenets of their faith by being fruitful and multiplying could come under the separation of church and state.

This is simply an idea that would never fly.

D'accord... nor mine.

Sorry. That's terrible.

Yes, I know. Nevertheless, our jurisprudence provides for a fundamental and inalienable right to privacy following from the penumbra cast by, variously, the 1st Amendment, the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendmentand the 14th Amendment.

Don't get me wrong. It wasn't abusive. And, without turning this into a conversation/debate over corporal punishment, my spider senses tell me that this world might be a better place if some of the little bastards running amok out there (as well as the current generation of parents) had received the occasional crack in the behind.

This is the reason why people should not be having kids. High probability during my lifetime that there will be wars and disputes over water. But hopefully 2012 ends everything before it. I just hope we get that damn Super Mario Bros sequel beforehand.

Babies for some, miniature American flags for the rest.

Anytime you give authority to a person/group of people, there is a very high likelihood for abuse. Personal and political agendas will corrupt the system and the result will be that people who don't have access to resources or can't afford to pay off the gatekeepers, will be the ones who aren't allowed to breed. Also, what is and isn't acceptable parenting changes over time. For some, spanking is considered good parenting. Me on the other hand, will never lay a finger on my child. There will always be people who will disagree with whatever criteria is used to determine who is and isn't fit to parent. And they'd be right to question those criteria.

I think its tough to regulate what people can and can't do with their bodies. But I do think that education is key. A lot of the population problem could be curbed if sex ed was taught in school and birth control was free or low cost to whomever wanted it. And I think parenting classes would be a good idea as well, as long as there was room for diversity. I would hate for a parenting class to reinforce gender roles (like home ec did) or make people with "alternative lifestyles" (I really hate that term) feel like their households are dysfunctional or abnormal.

I like Overlord's tax incentive idea although I think that will not really affect the poorest sector of our population. I think in this case, education and access to resources are key.

The heavy machinery analogy breaks down (get it?) when you take it in the other direction. We let society place rules on us about who can and can't operate certain machinery. We tolerate it, because that's not a super important aspect of life. But that's no reason to let them (society, government, whatever) go further and regulate something much more personal and fundamental.

Because it would be tyranny. No matter who makes the decision of who can have children, no matter how reasonable and good each decision is, it's still tyranny when someone is telling someone else whether or not they can have children. Even if I were allowed to have kids myself (which, being a white male, educated, not poor, I'm sure I would be insta-approved) I can't see how I wouldn't be worse off for living in such a society.

Now if you want something like: tax incentives for 0-2 kids, and larger burdens on 3+, that could work as long as it's not too harsh. Or, as Overlord has mentioned, we could at least correct the current system which can reward having what most of us would think of as "too many." That last bit should be step one in any plan, probably.

That doesn't sound very "Pro-Choice", which I imagine is probably your political stance.

EDIT: Didn't see the 2 pages! And RD beat me to it.

Trinary bio agent -- father, mother + 3rd party (government) required to activate in order for fertilization to complete. Then pop in Children of Men on the ol' dvd player and watch until you can't cry anymore.
Agreed -- not enough is spent on the preventative measures.

Dickson's point is really the whole argument. If you've ever said that government should stay out of a woman's body, that it doesn't have the right to make reproductive choices for someone, then you already have an answer to this question.

The only viable solution I can come up with to stop crackheads from having kids is to lock up the crackheads in fucking jail. Something BC is quite unwilling to do for some reason.

if you want to be told by Gordon Campbell and his bastards whether you can have kids or not, fine by me. But while having kids is seen as a basic human right (and I think this is the discussion you should have rather than flirting with final solutions) the world is fucked and whoever breeds fastest (usually religious types and crackheads) is going to inherit what's left of the world. Good luck telling any religious type or pseudo religious type to stop having kids.



The other rather elegant solution would be to introduce a new type of crack that renders the user sterile.

Isn't that pretty much exactly right, though? It's a prisoner's dilemma.

Werewolf Girl, you'll be so much happier when you just give up. Focus on friends and family, and just let the world go. Accept the inevitable.

Because I can guarantee you this: we will never address the overpopulation problem in a coherent, global way. But, don't worry. This is a self-correcting issue ... eventually. It is a 100% certainty that nature will find a way to fix what we won't fix ourselves. And it will be very, very ugly. Much uglier than the unpalatable solutions that are too unpleasant to discuss.

Meantime, enjoy the few scraps of plenty we have left!

Like The Happening ugly?

I'm surprised that you think a centralized, enforced "solution" is the way to go on something like this (or anything, really) - what makes population so different from all the other issues, on which we've always known you to be generally libertarian?

edit: one more question: Have "unpalatable solutions" for huge problems ever not lead to horrors?

Child permits? Sounds like the beginning of a horrible 'utopian' society. Government regulating human nature. That's what you're asking for. Not just a mere child limit. But fuck. What a stupid, inhumane idea.

hey, this all went to shit when you have teachers can't "punish" children..

I grew up fearing my father, I knew if I fucked up just a little..he would bring a world of pain and you know what, I'm thankful for that.

Also, hell...forced sterilization was a good idea..there I said it.

I agree...plus Americas birth rate is right were it needs to be, other countries like Europe for example is slowly dying out given their lower birth rate.

If that became a law during my lifetime, Im going to live underground and eat rat burguers with Mr. Friendly.
as for nature correcting this problem...well, last time it used a fucking meteor to wipe out the dominant species; lets hope we get something just as awesome.

Gotta agree with so many folks here - never underestimate the power of a little discipline. A smack on the behind was enough to keep me and my brother in line. Then when we got older, all my dad had to do was tell us "I'm very disappointed in you", which was infinitely worse.

I'm sorry, Werewolf, and I do sympathize, but there's no way in hell anyone will attempt to license parents. The hue and cry from the public will make any such attempt (pardon me) stillborn. Best thing you can do is propose more education/sex-ed/parenting classes at your local high school or college (sort of a Real World 101), and see if there's any interest. Also, if/when you yourself have kids, use the parents you hate so much as examples of what NOT to do when you raise your kid. Hopefully, your child will pick up on those lessons, and pass it along to his/her kids, and so on.

That, or like Overlord says, wait for nature to do the job. Which it will. In a couple of generations. And I hope to have a ring-side seat for the Apocalypse.

In WG's defense, I have said on occasion (and usually while out at the store, or reading some shitty news item, etc) "People should have to get a license to be parents. Ya need a license to own a dog, etc..." But then I shrug it off and focus on my own problems/responsibilities/message board posting.
Yup. Kids aren't scared enough these days, with their pop idols getting all knocked up. Having a kid is hard enough in your 30s. I can't imagine what it would be like in your teens.

Who says it's going to take a couple generations? There's enough scary diseases out there, and international travel is easy enough, that a nasty new disease could be all over the world before we even knew it existed. Then humanity will probably still be around thanks to the overpopulation. let's hope those that make it got a belt across the back a few times at least.

And those will have to deal with the Walking Dude.

It's spineless to pass this off as "people will never go for this idea," as if it's just some sort of sad fact. People shouldn't go for this idea, particularly anyone who considers him or herself pro-choice, as Richard pointed out. Reproductive freedom is reproductive freedom.

Don't let your misanthropy get in the way of your ethics.

I'm kinda surprised at the number of people who endorse corporal punishment. Sure it affects people's behavior, but not because they learned what they did was wrong, but out of fear of getting punished again. Take away the authority figure and the bad behavior will remain unchecked. Anecdotal I know, but I've seen kids act properly around their parents, but at school or someone other public place run amok. I've also seen parents really hurt/bruise their kids for behaviors that are completely normal kid behaviors. I just can't condone physically abusing kids. Sorry.

Not to mention that most of the "I was beaten as a kid and turned out fine!" crowd turn out to be very dull adults.

You'll find many of them in the nation's churches and governments (and, of course, the military.)

Corporal punishment teaches kids that the deliberate infliction of pain is an acceptable way to modify behaviors. You shouldn't even teach that to your dog.

You tossed a lot into that post. Firstly, corporal punishment is classic negative reinforcement. You're training the child that bad behavior gets rewarded with negative stimuli. And, if done properly, it's not about pain, it's about knowing you did something wrong and were being called to the floor for it. Secondly, no one is condoning "hurting" or "bruising" children. Thirdly, no one is condoning punishing children for regular child behavior. This world has moved way too far along the lines of coddling children while simultaneously keeping them from acting in certain childlike ways.

Why can't you teach a child what's wrong without physical force? A stern "no" does wonders, even for a dog or cat. Granted we could throw out extremes on both ends (at what point did I say kids should be coddled?). Negative reinforcement does not equal spanking. There's a range of activites that go under than term. Personally, I think physical punishment should be reserved as a last resort, if not at all.

If this were accurate you would not be able to do anything to your child. You couldn't ground them because it would cause emotional pain. You couldn't tell them they did something wrong because it would also cause emotional pain. Punishment is simply a deliberate infliction of pain as a consequence, it is just the type of pain that varies.

Physical pain.

Because 99% of what an adult says goes right out the other ear until you're in your 20s and out of college, at least for the vast majority of people. One day of not being able to sit down isn't easily ignored.

I never understood the outcry against spanking your kid. That little bandwagon didn't show up until the late 80's early 90's. Before that a kid got a spanking, learned that bad actions result in bad reactions, and we went on our way. My schools still had parents sign corporal punishment forms until I was in 10th grade.

I agree. I'm certainly not suggesting that corporal punishment should be the be all, end all.
I wasn't referring to you with that "coddled" comment. It was a general observation/summarization about the state of the world that I threw in at the end.
See Response No. 1.

My point is that I believe there is a place for the judicious application of corporal punishment in child rearing. Nor do I believe that corporal punishment always implies "abusive" behavior.

Yeah, corporal punishment has some significant downsides, especially if you've got a particularly petulant child. Like me. Whenever I was physically punished as a child for misbehavior, I spent days getting revenge wherever possible. What else was I supposed to do? I felt like I was under attack, and submitting to the fear of a spanking just means you've given up your dignity.

The tax incentive idea doesn't even speak to the problem of unfit parents, which was the original topic of the thread. You can have a dozen kids, but still be a fine parent (by whatever standard you're going by). The unspoken, underlying assumption here seems to be that every huge family is either the Duggars or a criminal factory. There are plenty of people from large families who aren't socially maladjusted - why should we penalize good parents who manage to raise productive members of society?

Now, if we're talking about overpopulation, it's a different matter, but still not one that tax incentives would even put a dent in. To use WG's own example, do you really think a crack whore is thinking about her taxes?

For that matter, do you think tax incentives are going to reduce the staggering number of teen pregnancies? Teens don't even pay, much less understand, taxes. The only way you're going to head that particular problem off is education - get better teachers in schools, drop abstinence education as a viable option across the board, and get parents more involved in their kids' lives. How do you manage that last one? No idea, but that's what you have to aim for, not tax incentives that will further financially penalize (often) poor families who are already going to be burdened with another mouth to feed.

Golly... nice of you to paint your targets with such a broad brush.

If I were not retired, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself...

but I'm kinder and gentler now... and immune to your glittering generalities.

Go fuck yourself.

Hm. Well, regardless of whether or not I should still fuck myself, I'll narrow it down a bit more for clarity and say that it wouldn't surprise me if people succeeding in those fields adhere to that viewpoint.

Those examples you give are poor comparisons, though, as they deal with overturning federal mandates that actively prevented people from engaging in an act or denied them a basic right. Child raising isn't something that can be effectively managed on that level. Some will do well, some will do poor. It's just the way of things. Some problems can't be legislated away.

Much better!

Still friends?