Poll: Should parents be licensed to have children?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: jpbushido99
I think Nature, though slow, will weed out certain characteristics that are not positive towards the evolution of human nature.:beer::D:brokenheart::camera::clock::camera::brokenheart::D:brokenheart::camera::clock:
Click to expand...

there is no positive in evolution... just whichever traits lead to breeding success. and you know how that saying goes... the rich get richer, and the poor get children.
 
J

jpbushido99

Senior member
Nov 14, 2002
206
0
0
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: jpbushido99
I think Nature, though slow, will weed out certain characteristics that are not positive towards the evolution of human nature.:beer::D:brokenheart::camera::clock::camera::brokenheart::D:brokenheart::camera::clock:
Click to expand...

there is no positive in evolution... just whichever traits lead to breeding success. and you know how that saying goes... the rich get richer, and the poor get children.
Click to expand...


That?s funny, but unfortunately that?s true. I have a friend whose mom was poor at one point very smart though, but excessively depressed, and she has about 10 kids now, I am friends with her son and he happens to be one of the smartest persons I know and he is graduating from Oberlin soon and happened to be the salutatorian of his High School, and his sister has the best body I have ever seen, so I am little in between on forcing people to not have kids because we could be potentially missing out on the future of our society, and talents that have been unregulated by popular culture, that will contribute exponentially to the betterment of society.
 
DivideBYZero

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Originally posted by: jdogg
Hey Zero ... sadly enough we already DO have laws governing where we are allowed to fvck (certainly can't do it in public), walk (only in cross walks or side walks!!) p!ss and sh!t (again, a no-no in public) These are all basic functions and honestly, none of these things would harm another person where as having a child without being able to properly care for the child has PLENTY of potential of harm.


Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Yeah, why not. Then we could licence who was allowed to fvck, eat, breathe, walk, run, p!ss, sh!t, etc.


We are animals at the end of the day, and we will do stupid things.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is governance, not licence to allow the act in the first place. The discussion is to do with allowing the privilege. We already have the privilege of fvcking, walking, p!ssing and sh!tting. The why's and wherefore's are limited but not the acts themselves.
 
G

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
his sister has the best body I have ever seen, so I am little in between on forcing people to not have kids because we could be potentially missing out on the future of our society, and talents that have been unregulated by popular culture, that will contribute exponentially to the betterment of society.
Click to expand...

hmmm... i guess we could let the hot ones reproduce more.... :D

 
T

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
that and answering a few simple questions before you can vote like "when was the war of 1812" or "whats 2^2/2"
Click to expand...

.....and taught how to punch out a chad on a ballot in order to vote for the person they really want to.
 
S

SuepaFly

Senior member
Jun 3, 2001
972
0
0
Offhand I want to say yes, but I voted No. Its the whole intention vs. practice thing. Its a good idea so long as there is an accurate means to test/license people. On the reality end of it all, its wrong to tell people they wouldn't be good parents and thus cannot have kids. Not only that, but there is no way to tell who is qualified to have children and who is not. Any time the government tries to regulate something, it never works out.
 
G

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: SuepaFly
Offhand I want to say yes, but I voted No. Its the whole intention vs. practice thing. Its a good idea so long as there is an accurate means to test/license people. On the reality end of it all, its wrong to tell people they wouldn't be good parents and thus cannot have kids. Not only that, but there is no way to tell who is qualified to have children and who is not. Any time the government tries to regulate something, it never works out.
Click to expand...

why is it wrong? i think we can safely assume that ed gein would not have been a good parent... of course the test would never be able to say that someone is qualified to be a parent, but i definitely think it is possible to say with high accuracy that certain people are not qualified. you won't get all the unqualified people (otherwise your test would be accurate both ways), but you could definitely do a little rudimentary filtering. better than nothing...
 
Vic

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Ameesh
if you voted yes to this you should go live in china.
Click to expand...
What I want to know is just how this would be enforced....
 
S

SuepaFly

Senior member
Jun 3, 2001
972
0
0
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: SuepaFly
Offhand I want to say yes, but I voted No. Its the whole intention vs. practice thing. Its a good idea so long as there is an accurate means to test/license people. On the reality end of it all, its wrong to tell people they wouldn't be good parents and thus cannot have kids. Not only that, but there is no way to tell who is qualified to have children and who is not. Any time the government tries to regulate something, it never works out.
Click to expand...

why is it wrong? i think we can safely assume that ed gein would not have been a good parent... of course the test would never be able to say that someone is qualified to be a parent, but i definitely think it is possible to say with high accuracy that certain people are not qualified. you won't get all the unqualified people (otherwise your test would be accurate both ways), but you could definitely do a little rudimentary filtering. better than nothing...
Click to expand...

But where to draw the line? Is there any way to catagorize all people and say "This group is not allowed to have children." Murderers? Does that include self-defense? Rapists? Child molesters? By saying that, we've discounted the entire justice system that we live in. If the people will always be labeled for acts they committed (which I'm not saying is wrong nor right) then there is no point in sending them to jail. Because then we've discounted all hope of rehabilitation, on the ability to become a better person.

I'm not saying either way which I agree with, I just believe the mechanics of this all would never work fairly.
 
H

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,986
11
81
Perhaps instead of licensing, we would have mandatory parenting classes in high school.
 
AnyMal

AnyMal

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
15,780
0
76
Wow, I am surprised to see this thread is still alive, but it made for good read nevertheless. What I liked the most, despite the wide ranging opinions is that everyone stayed civil, with exeption of a couple well-known village idiots.

I think this is on the topic; did you know that word "fvck" is actually an abbreviation? Fornication Under Consent of King. So... what we're talking about here is nothing new.
 
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,850
6,387
126
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
No

The mistake of a "few" should not take away the "right" of procreation IMO :)
Click to expand...
Procreation isn't a right.
Click to expand...

Wha wha whaaat? It's as much of a Right as Breathing.

We don't need ProCreation licensing, but perhaps we should have Posting Licensing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom