In a spin off from the Abortion Thread I was thinking about that if it was possible, (I know it isnt) would a Parent licence be a good idea? It would operate under the same principles of a driving or gun licence where by you first have to meet certain criteria before you are allowed to have kids, critera such as; Be able to provide a loving and steady environment for a child (not necessarily married) Have x amount of money saved to be finacially able to support a child Prove they can give up things harmful to the baby during pregnancy (eg. smoking) The idea I had in mind is that if somehow it was possible to make either male or females infertile at birth by say the implanting of a chip, which cant be removed by anyone except parent licensing places. That way people are not getting pregnant and having life terminated (as with abortion) but simply incapable of producing life with this chip, so life is not destroyed, just prevented. There would be no change allowed to the requirements without the majority of the peoples vote, not a governments decision. Also there would be no screening of the baby to see if they had any genetic diseases, only the quality of parent would be considered, no genetic factors. If I've missed out a way of how the system couldnt work or ways around it please just suspend your disbelief and just think theoretically. In favour potential arguments
- The quality of someones life is more important than someones desire to have kids.
- With this form of birth control society would have much less social problems with "the youth of today".
- No more abortions.
- Children would grow up in a good environment feeling loved and wanted.
Againts potential arguments
- Removes peoples freedom of choice, even if bad choices may harm others.
- Open to much abuse from governments.
- "Good" parents can still produce "bad" kids.
Would this form of birth control help solve many of societies problems or would it remove too many of peoples liberties and freedoms? Remember, please suspend your disbelief at the impossiblity of this actually happening and just give your opinion of it it did. If you're in favour of it please give what you think are suitable requirements and if againts please say why.
[Insert User Title Here]
15th March 2005
Interesting idea, but it'd never work. How would you punish someone without a license? Take away their kids? Somehow I don't think that would be any better than the situation now.
Wow that was an amazing quick reply :p. No, people are made infertile at birth and cant be made un-fertile until they meet these requirements via a chip or something. I know it couldnt actually ever happen, but if it could what then?
Shizzle my nizzle
28th July 2004
Yeah, that needs to be introduced. The world is very overpopulated (mainly because of Africa and Asia, though), and this has side effects not only on food sources but living standards and carbon emissions.
The complication with this is that people will get pregnant anyway, and trouble makers will start bitching about what happens to the baby - does it live, or should it be aborted.
It would be scary. Nothing I'd like to see, although the idea of everyone having a good childhood is good, making people infertile sounds like the 1930s. Besides we need more children to support our economy, not less, and by "we" I mean most European countries.
That would actually be a good idea, and considering population and the giant effect the baby boomers are going to have when they retire, having a kid should be a privelege and not a right. Of course, this is right up there with communism working, and is a wonderful idea in theory, but would simply not work because of technological limitations, and because people are morons. There would be bootleg removals of the chip (or whatever barrier is preventing fertility), and the licensing places would have to be really tight ships. Of course, bad kids would still be raised, and there really is no proper way to "test" for proper parenting (besides the obvious, but those cases are usually pretty clear-- pedophiles would never be allowed kids, for example). You can't do objective testing for those sorts of things, and since you can't do objective testing, making proper guidelines would be difficult. Great idea though, maybe one day in a distant future utopia.
It's only a matter of time before it's like this: "Sorry herr Schmitt, you have no blue eyes and blond hair. Ve do not vant you to reproduce!"
This is a definate no-go, before we turn our society into a 'brave new world'...
Don't worry, lightning, I think genetic engineering coupled with expensive yet effective health treatments (Like say extending someone's life significantly with nano-technology for a pretty penny) will have that effect long before this idea will ;). Something like this would definitely seperate social classes and would probably end up producing some sort of caste system (i.e the poor wouldn't be able to offer "suitable" living conditions for a child, according to politician John Doe, and therefore would be denied the right to have children).
[Insert User Title Here]
15th March 2005
IrishNo, people are made infertile at birth and cant be made un-fertile until they meet these requirements via a chip or something.
I'm sorry, did I skip over that in the first post? I would've gotten such a laugh out of that the first time around if I read it...
That's messed up, though. The only way, scientificially, I can think of that they'd be able to do that is to suppress hormones. Which would mean you didn't go through puberty until you reached "license age", which would physically screw people up. Unless you could find a way to stop a man's sex drive (or cut off his sperm production temporarily) and stop a woman's menstrual cycle, I don't see how that would be possible without far more negative effects than positive.
I see the point of the idea, but it depends on the judgements of a government body, which makes it at best highly fallible, and at worst dangerous. What constitutes a good family environment is wide open to debate.