Why do you need a license to fish but can have a child any old time you please?

[AreaCode707]

Prompted by the deaf-lesbian-baby thread.
You need a license to fish or own a gun or get married. You have to take classes and have hours of practice and be a certain age if you want a driver's license. You're responsible to various organizations if you want to take out a loan to buy a house. But you can be thirteen, have no experience or lessons in the task you're undertaking, in prison, a druggie, with no regulations whatsoever and still have a child. All of these things involve the lives of other people, even in such a minor way as keeping the salmon population steady, but one of the ultimate ways of affecting someone's life has no regulation whatsoever.
Now, I'm conservative and have the rather normal view that the government messes with people's lives a lot. But it makes no sense to regulate your right to get married or own a gun and not regulate having children. My point is not that they should regulate people having children or that they shouldn't regulate gun ownership or fishing habits or stuff like that, only that it's pretty inconsistant. If they're monitering things that people do that have an impact on other people's lives, why isn't this on the list?

<---- doesn't want to see baby-making regulated but wonders how the power-mongers missed it.

 

[minendo]

<< You have to take classes and have hours of practice and be a certain age if you want a driver's license. >>


Actually you only have to be a certain age and pass a test. No classes or practice is required.

 

[notfred]

yeah, i dont think recreational fishing shoud require a license, either.

 

[Viper GTS]

It's hard to regulate something that anybody with a tab & a slot can construct in their bedroom.\



<< Actually you only have to be a certain age and pass a test. No classes or practice is required. >>



Wrong. Many states are pushing to require both classes and documented practice. Oregon is among them. I was lucky, my brother & sister both have to go through the new requirements.

Viper GTS

 

[Ameesh]

you want the governemnt to be able to regulate what you do in your bedroom?

 

[Amused]

Why people embrace and/or endorse authoritarianism will escape me no matter how hard I try to understand.

Not only is it oppressive, it never works.

 

[Zenmervolt]

As with most things, the power (and thus the requirements) for regulation in other areas exists because people have been willing to give up their rights in those areas. Fishing did not used to be regulated, but people became convinced that it was a good idea to regulate it, so they gave up rights. Same thing with guns, over the course of time, "experts" (read: "hollywood bozos") have convinced people that firearms are in need of regulation, so people gave up their rights in that area too. I don't think that regulation of baby-making has been missed, it's simply a case of people not being willing to give up their rights in that area.

ZV

 

[AreaCode707]

<< you want the governemnt to be able to regulate what you do in your bedroom? >>



Absolutely not. I said that above. I'd prefer them not to regulate what I do with a fishing pole either, or a gun - so long as I don't shoot anyone.

 

[Frosty3799]

<<

<< You have to take classes and have hours of practice and be a certain age if you want a driver's license. >>


Actually you only have to be a certain age and pass a test. No classes or practice is required. >>



had to take a 5-hour pre-licensing class here in NY

 

[vi edit]

That's an interesting thought.

For years I've wished that ones fertility could be controlled by an on/off switch of sorts. Basically, the switch is set to off until one desires it to be "activated". If this were the case, the abortion argument would more or less be non-existant, unadopted kids wouldn't be in the situation they are in(for the most part), and there would be a whole lot less of undesired children left unloved and ignored. When a couple was ready, emotionally, and financially, to have a child, the switch would be flipped, and a pregnancy could occur.

But of course, about the only way this could ever happen would be a physical or hormonal procedure before puberty, and the fact that it would never fly with a large percentage of the population.

 

[BornStar]

<< Wrong. Many states are pushing to require both classes and documented practice. Oregon is among them. I was lucky, my brother & sister both have to go through the new requirements. >>



In Michigan, once you hit 18, you have to take a test and you get your license. I obviously wanted my license at 16 so I took all of the courses and got my learners permit and eventually took the roadtest.

 

[JetBlack69]

<< you want the governemnt to be able to regulate what you do in your bedroom? >>



You want to keep paying taxes that fund the programs to help unexperienced or bad parents get their act in gear?

 

[Perknose]

<< That's an interesting thought. For years I've wished that ones fertility could be controlled by an on/off switch of sorts. Basically, the switch is set to off until one desires it to be "activated". If this were the case, the abortion argument would more or less be non-existant, unadopted kids wouldn't be in the situation they are in(for the most part), and there would be a whole lot less of undesired children left unloved and ignored. When a couple was ready, emotionally, and financially, to have a child, the switch would be flipped, and a pregnancy could occur. But of course, about the only way this could ever happen would be a physical or hormonal procedure before puberty, and the fact that it would never fly with a large percentage of the population. >>

Damn, honey, not enough resources. Let me do a booty re-boot.

Also, your idea gives unexpected new meanings to the term "interface" and the phrase "bait and switch".

 

[docmanhattan]

<<

<< you want the governemnt to be able to regulate what you do in your bedroom? >>



Absolutely not. I said that above. I'd prefer them not to regulate what I do with a fishing pole either, or a gun - so long as I don't shoot anyone. >>

You use a fishing pole in your bedroom?!?!? :Q

Actually, there are some people, age not withstanding, that should not be allowed to have children. The responsibility and maturity level required is just beyond some people.

 

[dullard]

<< But you can be thirteen, have no experience or lessons in the task you're undertaking, in prison, a druggie, with no regulations whatsoever and still have a child.
<---- doesn't want to see baby-making regulated but wonders how the power-mongers missed it. >>



Well some places have placed major regulations on baby-making. Biggest example: China.

There are minor regulations here in the US. For example if a 25 year old man has a baby with that 13 year old in your example, the man will be going to prison. The 13 year old will likely lose her baby as well. Convicted sex felons have their baby making rights removed in California (chemical castration). If you are considered an unfit parent you will lose the child. There are lots of baby-making regulations.

Lets compare baby making to getting married. To be legally married there is only one regulation: you must sign a marriage certificate and in some states pay a tiny fee. When a child is born you must: sign a birth certificate and in some state pay a tiny fee. So I don't understand your complaint that marriage is regulated but baby making isn't.

There has to be a clear benefit for a regulation to pass (note: these are all voted on by the public). You have the right to fish, but not to fish the lake to extinction. The small paperwork and fee helps keep the fish available for everyone to fish. If you choose not to fill out the paperwork, then big deal you just don't fish - the loss is very very minor to you and doesn't really affect your life. If the same regulation was passed on childbirth the consequence of (A) no childbirth or (B) forced abortion - this has a MAJOR effect to you and drastically affects your life.

In the case of fish regulation, you give up a little and help the whole world a lot. It affects me since I may want to have fish in the lakes you visit. In the case of a child regulation you give up a lot and don't help the world one bit. Can you come up with a single benefit that I personally will see if you have restricted child birth rights?



<< I'd prefer them not to regulate what I do with a...gun - so long as I don't shoot anyone. >>


There you just regulated yourself! You put a restriction on things you can do with a gun. You had no trouble with that regulation. The same cannot be said with any additional child regulation.

 

[AreaCode707]

Thank you for your response dullard (an inappropriate name, it would seem). The paragraph I wrote to kick off this thread was more a collection of random thoughts, not particularly my beliefs, intended to see what other thought, and your post made some good comments.

 

[dullard]

<< Thank you for your response dullard (an inappropriate name, it would seem). >>


Thank you for the compliment. It actually is an appropriate name (in my opinion). Far too many people use a name to pump up their meager responces. People using macho names to make up for lack of manliness, or intelligent name to make up for a lack of knowledge, or sexy names to make up for a lack of (oops I better stop - HotChic ). At Anandtech, the names are usually accurate, but not on many other forums and chat rooms. Instead I do the opposite - and let my posts speak for me. Plus I've never run into a need to add a number to the back of my name since there are already 3798 Frosty names.

 

[AreaCode707]

<<

<< Thank you for your response dullard (an inappropriate name, it would seem). >>


Thank you for the compliment. It actually is an appropriate name (in my opinion). Far too many people use a name to pump up their meager responces. People using macho names to make up for lack of manliness, or intelligent name to make up for a lack of knowledge, or sexy names to make up for a lack of (oops I better stop - HotChic ). Instead I do the opposite - and let my posts speak for me. >>



See sig.

 

[dullard]

<< See sig. >>


You and I use similar logic.

 

[Peetoeng]

There are issues specific to each case. And the word license has different meaning in each case.

Fishing license is a misnomer, it should be a proof of payment for fishing fee. All the fishing spots I've been to were regularly stocked so paying fishing fee is reasonable. You shouldn't get something and expect other people to pay for it.
I find a gun license in general is reasonable (although requirements to get a gun permit in NY is rather ridiculous). Gun is a deadly device just like your 4-ton SUV.
I believe it is a customary in catholic churches for bride and groom to attend pre-marriage course (not just a 5-hr session). That's reasonable and should be encouraged I think. But if having/making a baby is stipulated upon couple's education, income, maturity (is there such thing as maturity IQ?), suitable kid-raising environment (whoa!), that would definitely be intrusive.

About the designed deaf baby, I agree with the characterization that the parents are 'selfish'.

 

[LordMaul]

I don't agree that it should be regulated, but I DO think things like what those stupid lesbos did should be not only regulated/illegal, but punishable. Designing your kid to be how you want him to look/be should be banned...unless you are a retarded couple or something and want your kid to be normal, and it's possible, then go ahead.

 

[SpecialEd]

good idea... and while were at it... why don't we introduce genetic screening where couples have to get their DNA scanned for imperfections and genetic diseases. If they don't pass... no baby for them!

and if we're going register everytime we have sex with the government (because if you do the deed, theres always a chance you can get pregant), why don't we control kissing and holding hands too... because that kind of behavior can often lead to sex. I know... why don't we let the government control every aspect of our lives!! Because, no one is nearly responsible enough to make their own decisions!!


sheesh!!

 

[dullard]

<< I believe it is a customary in catholic churches for bride and groom to attend pre-marriage course (not just a 5-hr session). That's reasonable and should be encouraged I think. >>



That was a fun course for my wife and I. It helped focus us on potential problems before they could blow up in our marriage. Plus it forces you to think about your marriage for several months (no spur of the moment weddings). I agree that this type of thing should be highly encouraged (even if the religious content was removed). However, this could never be a forced regulation with our current society and drive through wedding chappels.

We currently value the right to a wedding - whenever and wherever - more than we value long lasting marriages.

 

[IGBT]

Realy makes ya think. Some of these people that have kids couldn't qualify for a fishing license. And then hooks the tax payer thru public assistance to support their fish..er..kids.

 

[PsychoAndy]

paige, this reminds me of when dogbert sold licenses to become a parent. i'm not sure of you can remember it or not. if you cant i'll scan it for you tomorrow when i get to the computer lab