Procreation Permit

[phoenixdem]

You know...this topic got brought up with a group of friends/co-workers last night. The gf (teacher), her friend and coworker (also a teacher) and her husband (an autism counselor and consultant). All agreed that there should be some sort of mandatory provisioning on giving birth. The husband agreed a permit system a good idea, while the two girls suggested that there are other ways of handling it, but we all agreed that there should be prerequisites to giving birth. I say throw the book at them.

@SearchingStudent; If Dad splits, then throw two books at him too...hit him with the $100 for the permit plus child support. Did you take him to court?

I have to say that this whole idea sounds like an idea that the antichrist will approve when he comes into power.

 

[98cwitr]

Add another supporter, spoke to my friend who is a recent RRT (Respritory Therapist) who also agrees that if you have to have a permit to carry a gun or drive a car, you should have to have a permit to have a child....for the responsibility to be able to take a life isn't outweighed by the responsibility of supporting one.

To save a few I am willing to affect the whole...did Christ not do the same?

 

[98cwitr]

I don't know whats scarier: your proposal or the fact that you don't see anything even remotely creepy about it.

What would happen if such a law were passed:

(1) It would almost certainly be overturned as a violation of the 14th Amendment, but assuming that it wasn't

(2) An exponential increase in the number of children in foster care (which itself is quite horrible, when you consider the consequences of aging out of foster care and the damage that is done to a child in foster care);

(3) Jail overcrowding;

(4) A stark increase in Government sanctioned Persecution of the poor;

(5) Government sanctioned persecution of those with a religious objection to contraception;

(6) An exponential increase in the number of abortions performed.

I could probably go on, but one thing you will not see is any meaningful decrease in child abuse or neglect.

The fact is that abused children are far more often the result of unplanned pregnancies than they are of parents with ulterior motives. And, as long as people are having sex, there will be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

1) I do not see how this has anything to do with the 14th amendment...could you point out how this idea conflicts with the amendment please.

2) Do you assume the quality of life in foster care cannot be improved with more funding?

3) True...more people would go to jail...so build more jails. It's only up to 30 days anyway.

4) Persecution of the poor? Let me ask you this...do you think it's okay for someone who can hardly manage to feed themselves should be allowed to bring another life into this world and be responsible for feeding it to. Get yourself on your feet...then buy a permit and have a child. If you can't support yourself then you can't support anyone else either.

5) I don't see how this would persecute any religion. Just get a permit...the proposal isn't difficult.

6) True enough...that is probably my biggest hangup.

 

[Naomanos]

I cannot believe that there are people out there that actually believe that this type of thing should come to pass.

And I once thought that people couldn't surprise me anymore, I should know better.

 

[pgp_protector]

I cannot believe that there are people out there that actually believe that this type of thing should come to pass.

And I once thought that people couldn't surprise me anymore, I should know better.

And just think, it's more than one that wishes to have the Government control who can / can't have children.

 

[Naomanos]

And just think, it's more than one that wishes to have the Government control who can / can't have children.

is right!

 

[Nemnar]

The idea is a problem of the ends justify the means. Of course, the point about the increase of abortion rates pretty much invalidates the whole idea. You would be swapping one problem for another. 98, I understand you want to protect children, but you need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

 

[phoenixdem]

Add another supporter, spoke to my friend who is a recent RRT (Respritory Therapist) who also agrees that if you have to have a permit to carry a gun or drive a car, you should have to have a permit to have a child....for the responsibility to be able to take a life isn't outweighed by the responsibility of supporting one.

To save a few I am willing to affect the whole...did Christ not do the same?

Many marriages turn out bad. Would it be a good thing in your thinking to get the permission of the state before marriage? No permission, no marriage...

 

[Naomanos]

We're imperfect creatures, we're bound to make mistakes, especially as new parents.

You cannot have a perfect human parent!

 

[98cwitr]

We're imperfect creatures, we're bound to make mistakes, especially as new parents.

You cannot have a perfect human parent!

Not asking for perfect...just for caring.

Many marriages turn out bad. Would it be a good thing in your thinking to get the permission of the state before marriage? No permission, no marriage...

You have to do that anyway...it's called a marriage license

 

[phoenixdem]

1) I do not see how this has anything to do with the 14th amendment...could you point out how this idea conflicts with the amendment please.

2) Do you assume the quality of life in foster care cannot be improved with more funding?

3) True...more people would go to jail...so build more jails. It's only up to 30 days anyway.

4) Persecution of the poor? Let me ask you this...do you think it's okay for someone who can hardly manage to feed themselves should be allowed to bring another life into this world and be responsible for feeding it to. Get yourself on your feet...then buy a permit and have a child. If you can't support yourself then you can't support anyone else either.

5) I don't see how this would persecute any religion. Just get a permit...the proposal isn't difficult.

6) True enough...that is probably my biggest hangup.

This thing is getting sillier by the minute. It isn't simply that some people shouldn't have kids. Sin has always been rampant in mankind since the fall. It is sin that is causing the bad parenting that you abhor. We should abhor sin, absolutely we should abhor sin; however, focusing on bad parenting isn't doing anything about the root cause of our problems. I will repeat again that the root cause is sin. What do you think?

 

[98cwitr]

I would agree. So shall we forsake the constitution and have this be an enforced Christian country?

 

[MrJDSmith]

I would agree. So shall we forsake the constitution and have this be an enforced Christian country?

Only if we get to use my interpretation of Christianity only.

 

[dies-l]

1) I do not see how this has anything to do with the 14th amendment...could you point out how this idea conflicts with the amendment please.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The very idea that someone could be jailed and have their parental rights removed simply for failing or refusing to jump through arbitrary hoops is such a blatant violation of due process that I am having a hard time seeing what you don't get about that. Not to mention that charging a fine for having children is a taking of property without due process of law.

2) Do you assume the quality of life in foster care cannot be improved with more funding?

Do I assume? No. Do have I an opinion based upon fairly extensive knowledge of the foster care system? Yes, and that is that the problem is not lack of funds -- it goes to the very nature of foster care being a less perfect system that is sometimes the lesser of two evils. In documented cases of profound abuse, it is sometimes necessary, but it is never an arrangement that should be used when there is no history of documented malfeasance on the part of the parents.

3) True...more people would go to jail...so build more jails. It's only up to 30 days anyway.

The only response I can think of for this is . Jails cost money, lots of money, that is better spent on programs to help kids, rather than to incarcerate their parents, for having failed or refused to jump through ridiculous hoops. (I would also point out that this is the first time that I can see where you mentioned anything about 30 days).

4) Persecution of the poor? Let me ask you this...do you think it's okay for someone who can hardly manage to feed themselves should be allowed to bring another life into this world and be responsible for feeding it to. Get yourself on your feet...then buy a permit and have a child. If you can't support yourself then you can't support anyone else either.

This very statement shows your blatant contempt for the poor.

Many low income people have an uncanny ability to stretch a dollar when it comes to caring for their families; why do you want to make it harder for them by making them pay an arbitrary fee, just to prove that they have the ability to parent children.

5) I don't see how this would persecute any religion. Just get a permit...the proposal isn't difficult.

First of all, some religious groups believe in having large numbers of children if the Lord so blesses them. Would you really demand that they pay a fine

Ultimately, the test is going to have a bias towards certain attitudes and beliefs about parenting. Not everyone is going to agree with these beliefs, and not everyone who disagrees with the prevailing attitudes and beliefs is a child abuser. Essentially, the type of "test" that you are talking about would require prospective parents to either lie about their acceptance of certain beliefs and attitudes or else never be allowed to have children. So, we could effectively add the 1st Amendment to the list of constitutional principles being violated.

6) True enough...that is probably my biggest hangup.

If you believe in the sanctity of life, this is a pretty big one.


Furthermore, I would say that as Christians we ought to be encouraging and supporting families and not inhibiting people from procreating, simply because of their financial limitations, their opinions, or their willingness and ability to jump through government hoops. How any Christian could support such an attempt at inhibiting the "wrong types" of people from procreating is beyond me. In short, this sounds like nothing less than an a eugenics program that might seem more palatable to the masses.

 

[Naomanos]

Not asking for perfect...just for caring.

I don't qualify for the majority of your stipulations, yet am always told that I am great around children and will make an awesome father.

BTW, my wife has MS which will continue to progress and make her further disabled, would you disqualify her even though she is one of the most caring people that I have ever met?

 

[dies-l]

To save a few I am willing to affect the whole...did Christ not do the same?

So, eugenics is now somehow Christlike ... ugh. :o

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...

To save a few I am willing to affect the whole...did Christ not do the same?

Um... NO, in fact He did the exact Opposite.
He Sacrificed the Few(One) to Save the whole.

 

[Naomanos]

Um... NO, in fact He did the exact Opposite.
He Sacrificed the Few(One) to Save the whole.

To quote a famous line from Wrath of Khan"


"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

Said by Kirk and Spock as they completed the phrase for each other.

 

[98cwitr]

Um... NO, in fact He did the exact Opposite.
He Sacrificed the Few(One) to Save the whole.

Ah universalism at work I see....I said "affect" not sacrifice. Are you saying Christ didn't affect to some degree every person on earth? Tell it to the kids that will be beaten and neglected by their parents tonight because they are considered "a mistake".....

 

[dies-l]

Ah universalism at work I see....

How is that universalism? Do not all have the opportunity to be saved as a direct result of Christ's sacrifice?

I said "affect" not sacrifice. Are you saying Christ didn't affect to some degree every person on earth?

You are twisting the Gospel to make eugenics sound good. That is really just sick in my opinion.