Forums serve as a rent a child service...

[bhsup]

I'm sorry, Aelf. I thought I disagreed with you, but I think I just don't understand. Maybe someday I will, but for now I'll just grapple with the fundamentals until that someday comes that I finally understand and can be in lockstep with you.

Pity. It would have been easier to just disagree.

 

[peter grimes]

? I think children's lives trump the 'right' of adults to have children.

. And it's really hard to use prevention of birth as an argument in favor of being "good for the child."

Point and counter point.

I actually agree with aelf here. I had never thought about it before a good friend of mine - who's actually my most libertarian friend - noted the frustratingly high rates of 'irresponsible' parenting.

His idea? You have to show up at a government office 2 different times and sign your name. Successfully completing this challenge grants you a mark on your social security file, and qualifies you for enhanced benefits for parental leave, childbirth education classes free of charge, and a baby-box full of infant supplies along the lines of Finland's.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why would ability to show up at a government office, more challenging for those without easy access to transportation and time off of work(which are things the poor struggle with), qualify those who need aid less for more aid? How terrifyingly neocon.

Honestly though, I think I've seen it all now. The pros of womb legislation lauded by the staunchly pro-choice? The underlying principles and logic are screaming Peter(though I'm prolly just reading that incorrectly).

 

[peter grimes]

I told you he was a libertarian

His reasoning was that if you can't make it to an appointment that will help your kid's infancy, then maybe you won't be able to make the required meetings later in the kid's life.

 

[Gucumatz]

Yea I fail to see how that determines anything Peter either. For urban centers it just would add to an even greater disconnect what your friend proposed due to psychological, economic and demographic, and cultural reasons between societal classes.

Edit: But yea, can't expect different from a Libertarian .

 

[Farm Boy]

I told you he was a libertarian

His reasoning was that if you can't make it to an appointment that will help your kid's infancy, then maybe you won't be able to make the required meetings later in the kid's life.

Is that coupled with seizure of children from non-attending parties? Since essentially you're taking the group you've identified as "having the most problems with child-rearing" and effectively skewed the playing field even farther out of their favor by subsidizing everybody but them. That isn't libertarian. That's neocon in principle and possibly racist in application. Definitely at least class discriminatory. We don't allow that crap for voting, no reason to allow it here.

 

[Yeekim]

Now I'm sure that you are trolling, but this has potential to be amusing, so I'll play along.

There has merely been the suggestion of a parenting license

What would happen if people have kids without said license?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I assume jail time/fines? Possibly forced sterilization if we get to that point? Not much can be done to them with our current system of civil rights. We'll have to develop even more draconian police measures to crush the inevitable resistance and massive non-compliance. At some point after this we might see actual results!

However strict regulation has worked perfectly with our attempts to regulate what one puts into their body. Why wouldn't it work with things we pop out of our body? It's a sure fire thing.

As long we set our goal posts past the average human life span then eventually most people won't have a personal reference to tell if things are better or worse and the policy will just be accepted as the status qou. Mission accomplished.

 

[aelf]

I assume jail time/fines? Possibly forced sterilization if we get to that point?

Meh, see what I mean? Intelligent discussion is impossible on this topic when people immediately descend to accusations of totalitarianism and eugenics, some of whom are indeed libertarians who are against seat belt laws and driver's licenses as well.

The system could be no different from other kinds of regulations governing modern life, involving measures such as interviews, psychological assessments, with lighter penalties like fines and at most jail time reserved for the most recalcitrant. Hell, even just economic disincentives are something; that has worked for a population control. It's not going to be fool-proof thing. It should simply weed out the worst parents, which is a good thing.

But no, gaise, it's all about forced sterilizations and Nazis! What else?! Hurr durr.

 

[downtown]

I don't think there is any evidence that economic disincentives are the sort of things that will keep the worst type of parents from having kids.

 

[aelf]

Yeah, because that's like my only suggestion.

I certainly don't think they will be enough on their own, but they did work to control the rate of reproduction in some countries.

And, yeah, I know you guys have institutional problems over there that makes this very impractical today. But that really isn't a good reason why you should not in principle try to regulate child-rearing.

 

[Yeekim]

Lowering rate of reproduction isn't remotely similar to vetting parents.

Also:

I think a license for parenting is definitely needed, with very harsh punishment for illegal parents.

The system could be no different from other kinds of regulations governing modern life, involving measures such as interviews, psychological assessments, with lighter penalties like fines and at most jail time reserved for the most recalcitrant. /.../But no, gaise, it's all about forced sterilizations and Nazis! What else?! Hurr durr.

So, what'll it be?

 

[aelf]

It'll be the forced executions of foetuses. And a lifetime in the gulags for errant parents.

I dunno, if countries could lower rates of reproduction without resorting to forced sterilizations, I'm not sure what the substantive difference is with vetting parents.

 

[Yeekim]

I dunno, if countries could lower rates of reproduction without resorting to forced sterilizations, I'm not sure what the substantive difference is with vetting parents.

The fact that lowering rate of reproduction can be done with zero regards to who is actually having children?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Meh, see what I mean? Intelligent discussion is impossible on this topic when people immediately descend to accusations of totalitarianism and eugenics,

Yes, intelligent discussion is impossible with strawmen such as this.

I never mentioned Nazis or totalitarianism. Everything I alluded to has happened in one form or another in contemporary mainstream American society within living memory, yes including forced sterilization. Yeah, my forecast was generally pretty negative but hardly did I describe the 4th Reich.