Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: On the issue of child bearing and parenting...

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Required License to Procreate

    BEFORE YOU TAKE THE POLL, PLEASE READ THE ARGUMENT (issue #2 is a moral argument, NOT a practical one).

    Ohio seems to be making a move in the right direction by encouraging unfit mothers to not get pregnant by being paid $500.

    Could Women Get Paid Not To Get Pregnant? - News

    This thread discusses 2 issues, the first is step that Ohio may be taking, the second is taking it to another step and requiring a "license" or at least a way to demonstrate parenting proficiency in order to bear children.

    Issue #1 - Paying unfit mothers money to not have children.

    I support it. It encourages safe, responsible sex, it gives women a choice, and it provides a possible solution to decrease the harm being done to children by irresponsible parents who abuse and neglect their children.

    Issue #2 - Demonstrating proficiency for parenting children

    We have to show proficiency in driving in order to be legally allowed to do it. We have to show proficiency in trades in order to legally practice many of them. Heck, we even have to show some degree of proficiency as a pet caretaker to adopt an animal. But we could have an IQ of 3, live in a Volkswagen Beetle, make money by soliciting sex and selling drugs, and we are allowed to bring children into the world.

    Some women bear children as a form of income by the state. In the cases that children are found to be neglected or abused, the state takes them, but at tax payer's cost. The mother is not allowed to care for the child, but she is allowed to bring more children into the world and force the state (you, me, every other tax payer) take care of them. What sense does this make?

    This is why I support proficiency testing as a parent. HOW this could be implemented, I have no idea. Perhaps it is extremely costly. I don't necessarily support it on a practical level, but I do support it on the ethical/moral level (it's the same position I have on capital punishment in that respect).

    A mother who cannot care for their child, or refuses to do so, has no business bringing a child into the world. It is a moral responsibility to care for a child that you create (which is why I support it at least morally at this time, and not necessarily practically).

    ----------

    Now, if someone wishes to provide a practical argument for the pro position of issue #2, it is more than welcome. I have no idea where it would start. I started to present an argument, but noticed it had many complex variables that I was not ready to put forth yet (punitive action, tracking, testing, etc...).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    This is why I support proficiency testing as a parent. HOW this could be implemented, I have no idea.
    There's already a system in place. The state should model this proficiency test on how adoption agencies screen potential parents.

    Living in Ohio and having a sister who is adopted, this thread pertains to my interests.

    Today, any two fertile / verile individuals can make a baby, but adopting a child involves tremendous scrutiny. I remember my own parents going through it. The adoption agency interviewed, me, my grandparents, my parents' relations, my parents' co-workers & friends. They had a private investigator on staff to do VERY thorough background checks.

    While I agree that this may not be cheap and it's certainly not quick, it is thorough.

    As for the article in the op? I need more information before I can render a decision. The motivation of Ohio seems to be one of taxpayer benefit, but I'm not so sure I see a benefit to this. A few scenarios:

    1) How many women are going to earn the $500 and how often? Each year? A handful of unready "mothers" is expensive, but is it less expensive than throngs of childless women demanding $500?

    2) Unfit Jane is 18. She gets paid $500 dollars for not having a kid this year. She gets paid the same next year and the year after. The year after that she gets pregnant. Now, in addition to spending the thousands of dollars the program is seeking to avoid, we've also dropped $1500.00 into Unfit Jane which proved to be a "bad investment". What if it's ten years before she becomes pregnant and it's $15,000.00?

    The program has potential, but we need to know if $500 (a year??) is going to make a difference financially and in the lives of women.

  3. #3
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    1) How many women are going to earn the $500 and how often? Each year? A handful of unready "mothers" is expensive, but is it less expensive than throngs of childless women demanding $500?
    Yes, because it isn't any female that can qualify, it is those of high risk.

    Last month, BCJFS took in 12 abused and neglected kids over an eight-day period. Pielech said it costs somewhere between $3,500 and $9,000 to care for each child every month. He said it could be more cost-effective to give high-risk women an incentive to practice safe sex.


    "It may be cheaper to offer a family $500 not to have additional children than to bring (the kids) into a situation where they'll be abused and neglected," Pielech said. "When you see this escalating, these child endangerment cases and these child abuse cases and neglect, something has to be done."
    It doesn't appear that all women are being offered the incentive, just those that are known or seen to be of a high risk nature.

    2) Unfit Jane is 18. She gets paid $500 dollars for not having a kid this year. She gets paid the same next year and the year after. The year after that she gets pregnant. Now, in addition to spending the thousands of dollars the program is seeking to avoid, we've also dropped $1500.00 into Unfit Jane which proved to be a "bad investment". What if it's ten years before she becomes pregnant and it's $15,000.00?
    During the first 3 years she could have had 1-2 children. During 10, she could have had 6-8.

    Also, it is highly doubtful that this would be the norm. It takes 21 days to develop a habit. Jane has 3-10 years of experience and knowledge and habit of practicing safe sex. While certainly some may fall back into old patterns, I don't think that most would.

    The program has potential, but we need to know if $500 (a year??) is going to make a difference financially and in the lives of women.
    It isn't much at all, but if it can change the lives of at least some women and save the tax payers thousands of dollars, it seems like a worthwhile endeavour to me.

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    2 people have said that they do not support either measure, as well as not support the proficiency testing on moral grounds.

    Can someone offer an argument or reason why they should not be accepted?
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; January 9th, 2007 at 10:32 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #4
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Where have two people objected to the measures? Is there a referenced thread I'm not seeing?
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  5. #5
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    I've stated in the past that I'm all for getting a liscence for people to have children. Having lived in Ohio and having seen an insider's view of state government, I don't think $500 to families to not have kids is really the way I want my tax dollars spent. It's on a small enough scale that data can be collected and reviewed to see if this actually makes a difference.

    I do not see what's preventing a high risk family from not having a kid, collecting the $500, and then later on having another child.

    Honestly, I'd like to see the state fix the education funding system, but I'm not going to hold my breath...

  6. #6
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Where have two people objected to the measures? Is there a referenced thread I'm not seeing?
    It's the poll at the top of the thread. There are 2 people who objected to both measures.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    I am omnipresent.
    Posts
    2,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    I'd love to see a practical way to screen parents. Unfortunately, every proposal I've seen or can think of has flaws.

    The idea of paying $500 a year for high-risk women not to have sex has a number of problems. First of all, how does one determine what qualify as high risk? Secondly, I would imagine that one could make more money being payed to have sex than not to, and prostitution is one of the chief causes of this kind of problem.

    As for a parental test, how would we enforce it? Do we fine people who have unlicensed unprotected sex? In this case, we are exacerbating the kind of poverty that often leads to this sort of situation in the first place. Do we take their kids away from them? We do that now, and if they're neglecting them already, taking the kids won't be much of an incentive not to have more.

    And this is even ignoring the potential moral issues, ie, that maybe everyone has a right to be a parent, and the political challenge of getting such a measure passed on a large scale.
    -=]Iluvatar[=-
    Lurker, Former Staff

    "I'm not really here. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what's good for them."

  8. #8
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    It's the poll at the top of the thread. There are 2 people who objected to both measures.
    Sorry about that. I click the link to the most recent post and I don't see the top half the time... Thanks.

    At this point, I want to hold off on commenting until I have the appropriate time to dedicate to this issue.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  9. #9
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Iluvatar, I'm not so sure I agree that everyone should have the right to be a parent. In fact, I'm confident that this is not the case. Children are taken from parents who abuse and neglect them all the time. The right of the parent, was revoked due to their lack of ability.

    Raising children ought to be one of the highest priorities of parents, for a society. When it isn't, the children are harmed. Thus, something ought to be done about it.

    Currently, our solution is to allow the horrible parent to continue making children, but not allow that horrible parent to keep the children.

    What sense does that make?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #10
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Quote Originally Posted by Iluvatar View Post
    As for a parental test, how would we enforce it?

    Everyone gets a clean slate, but after the first time you have a kid without permission / liscence you lose the kid to social services until you can qualify and the female half of the couple is required to show up to a doctor's office to get birth control shots... Because birth control shots aren't nearly as expensive as more kids.

  11. #11
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Sounds like a socialist dictatorship, Zhav.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  12. #12
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Sounds like a socialist dictatorship, Zhav.
    Dictatorship? Who's the dictator? How is this a socialist idea?

  13. #13
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Who's paying for the injections? Who's controlling my ability to procreate? If the answer for either of those questions is not me, then you have your answer...

    Just because laws can be passed doesn't make them and their enforcement tyrannical. AND if *I* am not paying for these hormone injections, "the people" are, and I don't know about you, but that's a socialist practice of medicine, last I checked.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  14. #14
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    LP, taxpayers are paying no matter what. They pay now. It's a matter of deciding HOW taxpayers are going to pay, and how to decrease the costs. Currently, it's $3,500 - $9000 per kid per month when the state has to take them from moron parents.

    As it stands right now, moron and horrible parents can have as many kids as they want, and continue to have them...they just can't raise them. The state is forced to.

    What sense does that make?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #15
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Apok, I agree that paying for birth control is much cheaper than a child over the course of 18 years. However, forcing it on people is the last thing you should be wanting anyone to do, much less our government by passing such invasive and intruding and otherwise nasty laws. Let them get away with controlling who has children... Shall we use China as an example?
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  16. #16
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    It isn't forcing it on people in general, it is forcing it on those who have demonstrated they do not have the aptitude and proficiency and moral foundation to raise children. These are the people who produce crack-babies, neglect their children, kill their children, force the state to take away their children.

    Like I said, it is patently absurd to tell someone that they can't keep their child, but they can keep making children for us to take away from them.

    If we can take their children away, why can't we make them stop producing children they don't want, don't care about, can't raise and will force us to continue to take away?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  17. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,687
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    It might be a bad idea for certain people to bear children, but it's a FAR WORSE idea to create a government agency that determines who can and cannot have children.

    How would such a program be enforced? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion? What exactly do you do when there are thousands and thousands of "unlicensed" pregnancies (which there will be). What if it turns out that people of certain races "fail" to get licenses more often than other races?

    And then there is the genetic aspect - if only half of the population can breed, then the diversity of genetic material is limited (especially if certain races are prohibited more than others). In effect, we will become more in-bred than we otherwise would be.

    And such a program would most certainly be missaplied. Do you really think we can set up some kind of bureaucracy that would effectively implement this kind of policy? Or would they screw it up much of the time with people unjustly being denied one of the most basic fundamental human rights - the one thing that almost every human being seeks to do and is one of the very purposes of biological life? The nature of bureaucracy certainly entails many, many mistakes.

    Perhaps an argument can be made about someone who has proven to be unfit to raise children but assuming that no one is fit to raise children until they have proven otherwise (which is what licensing procreation would entail) is going way too far.

    Keep in mind that a license is something that allows you do something that is otherwise illegal (like drive a car on public roads - illegal without a license to do so). So requiring a license of procreation in effect makes procreation illegal.

  18. #18
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    I'd also like to add that instead of breeding into our population a sense of duty, honor, responsibility, maturity, all we're doing is further encroaching on the freedoms of our citizenry. Would you rather keep ebbing away at our freedoms by expanding the scope of the federal government? Or would you rather actually get at the source of the problem without needless government entanglements? Me, I'd rather keep certain matters out of their hands, thank you.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  19. #19
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    Mican: welcome to ODN

    While you raise some good points, much of your post is guilty of the slippery slope fallacy. Neither I* nor Apokalupsis has suggested a government agency that determines for ALL INDIVIDUALS who can & cannot have children. No one has suggested forced abortions nor am I sure what race has to do with this discussion. This isn't about race. It's about parenting.

    You have invented a massive government program applying to everyone and have convinced yourself that it will be corrupted / run poorly / be absued / etc. That truly is beyond this discussion. Furthermore, there are adoption agencies operating within the United States who do, in fact, decide who gets to be parents and who does not. These groups have been running for decades. While they're not quick, they are extremely thorough and have every right to be. Lawfully delivering a child into the custody of adults is not a decision that should be lightly weighed.

    Perhaps an argument can be made about someone who has proven to be unfit to raise children but assuming that no one is fit to raise children until they have proven otherwise (which is what licensing procreation would entail) is going way too far.
    The bolded part is what we're discussing here. The non-bolded is a slippery slope fallacy.












    *Okay, so I've sorta suggested it, but that's really beyond the scope of this thread...

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I'd also like to add that instead of breeding into our population a sense of duty, honor, responsibility, maturity, all we're doing is further encroaching on the freedoms of our citizenry. Would you rather keep ebbing away at our freedoms by expanding the scope of the federal government? Or would you rather actually get at the source of the problem without needless government entanglements? Me, I'd rather keep certain matters out of their hands, thank you.
    Would you rather your local government have the money available to upgrade schools & libraries or would you prefer them to be paying thousands of dollars for a handful of wards of the state gone bad?
    Last edited by Zhavric; January 10th, 2007 at 06:11 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  20. #20
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Required License to Procreate

    I don't think that the government should have as much control over our schools as they do, at least not the federal government.

    No matter what you do, Zhav, there are going to be wards of the state. People die, people get thrown in jail, kids get shunted to the side. That's NEVER going to change. And I'd rather keep my ability to parent MY WAY without any interference from you or anyone else who thinks they know better than I do, and deal with some of the unfortunate consequences. With freedom comes responsibility, and there are some people who can't handle that responsiblity. We accept that if we wish to maintain a free society. We deal with it as it comes. I think that your approach is entirely the wrong way to go about it. You're trying to put a bandaid on a gaping, bleeding wound, and it's not going to do anything to stop the bleeding. You have to get at what the underlying issues are, rather than restrict people's freedom. The former would be the only hope of lasting postitive change, the latter would just create more criminals.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Differences between conservatives and liberals
    By Apokalupsis in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2010, 03:38 PM
  2. "Traditional Marriage" License Plate
    By emtee10 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2005, 06:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •