Do think a people wanting to procreate should have a liscence from the government in order to do so?
I wanna keep it pretty simple, so please keep the arguments to a minimum or move them to the soap box.

If the answer is yes, what combination of the following should it require?
A: Financial responsibility
B: Disease screening
C: Genetic screening
D: Mental screening
E: Counseling
F: ___________

Also, in what way should the government control procreation? implants, fines, free BC?


If your answer is no, do you have any other argument besides infringement of personal freedom?



Most of the people I know are for controlled procreation, but then, alot of us think alike, so I'd like to know more people's opinion on the subject, so Thanks!

5/4/2007 2:56:47 PM

are you hitting on me?

5/4/2007 2:57:36 PM

omg what's a liscence?

5/4/2007 2:58:07 PM

G. Should know how to spell license.

5/4/2007 2:58:08 PM

I'm sorry, firefox spell check didnt catch it, I suck. Plz to answer my question tho and stop trolling, k thx

5/4/2007 2:59:26 PM

No, I would not support procreation licensing.

You and "most of the people you know" who you claim would support it are dumb, dumb, dumb...

5/4/2007 3:00:54 PM

move to soap box kthx

5/4/2007 3:01:58 PM

why would you want the government to run your life?

5/4/2007 3:02:01 PM

im sure the law would be aimed towards the serfs

5/4/2007 3:04:07 PM

GOD DAMN PLEBES

5/4/2007 3:04:37 PM

do i think the government should be able to control how many kids you have? No.

do i think the government should continue to subsidize and offer tax credits to parents with more than two children? No.

5/4/2007 3:11:08 PM

5/4/2007 3:14:52 PM

Why would anyone think controlled procreation is a good idea?
What possible advantages are there?

Please enlighten me because I can only think of obvious reasons why this is a terrible idea.

Please don't say "there will be less stupid people in the world". That is not a reason.

5/4/2007 3:18:49 PM

I think there are definite issues around reproduction - both socially, economically and from a health standpoint. Do I think that procreation licensing is the answer? Absolutely not.

5/4/2007 3:25:44 PM

I'd say yes & require all of the screenings, but:

1) I'd HATE to go through that when I want a kid. I mean, going to the DMV once every 5 years or whatever pisses me off for months -- I can't imagine going through this.

2) If only the intelligent and halfway wealthy have kids, who's gonna work the drive-thru & paint walls? Oh yeah, Mexicans...so nix my #2.

[Edited on May 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2007 3:27:45 PM

sylvershadow makes hitler HAPPY!

5/4/2007 3:28:42 PM

Yes, this is horrible, this idea

5/4/2007 3:29:11 PM

do you really want government workers deciding whether you can have kids?

i would possibly be in favor of tax credits for people with high iqs to reproduce, though. depends on what the cutoff is.

5/4/2007 3:36:37 PM

No, because there are no reasonable means of controlling procreation. I don't see how is it evenly humanly possible to limit procreation. This would make about as much sense as having a "license to decease".

If the answer is yes, what combination of the following should it require?
A: Financial responsibility (Can the family afford it? Life insurance?)
B: Disease screening (Is it because you are terminally ill or diseased?)
C: Genetic screening (Is it because you don't like how you look?)
D: Mental screening (Will you be a suicide victim?)
E: Counseling (Preparing you for the afterlife)
F: ___________

[Edited on May 4, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/4/2007 3:36:37 PM

This is not even possible. Even if the government gave away free birthcontrol there would be those idiots not to take it. Maybe if the government did free abortions........but they dont even want you to be able to pay for those. I think it is pretty stupid, but I do see your point of having less hungry child of people who cant afford to feed them. In response to that though, should people not be able to have the joys of parentingjust because they are poor?

5/4/2007 3:46:37 PM

Quote :

"No, because there are no reasonable means of controlling procreation."

Exactly..It's not a terrible idea, especially the arguments of disease, financial capability and genetic screening..but I don't see any possible way of making it viable without it being a huge infringement on our rights. Maybe make all the girls get the shot starting at the age of like 10 lol...but the possible bad side effects that are common with that would suck. Not to mention that'd seem like a license to start having sex all they wanted to since they couldn't get pregnant, which would probably end in a catastrophic rise of STD's



[Edited on May 4, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : sorry, bad grammar, dont feel like fixing]

5/4/2007 3:50:08 PM

it sounds like a horrible idea and i hate gov't abuse of power.

however, i then think about all the trash in society who breed more worthless stupid individuals who are just going to be breaking into my car in 20 years or who's crackwhore mom gets extra $$ thru welfare and wish they were not able to reproduce

5/4/2007 4:02:52 PM

Yeahhhh, I don't know much about genetic diseases but there really should be something setup by the gov't to make it really easy for you and your partner to be screened for such things for a very low cost... Maybe this is already a reality but I don't know much about it.

[Edited on May 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM. Reason : and white trash is white trash... it's here to stay haha]

5/4/2007 4:08:56 PM

hahaha
GREAT THREAD

i wonder what made you think of it

5/4/2007 4:13:33 PM

Yes A only. I'm tired of paying for kids that arn't mine

5/4/2007 4:44:27 PM

seriously, personal freedom is overfuckingrated

5/4/2007 5:25:12 PM

ok so check this out

i've been on tww for over 5 years now, and this is easily the stupidest fucking idea i've ever read on this site. thats no joke. and i can honestly say i actually read through a few of salisburyfuckhead's threads.

i can only hope this is a troll thread, and you don't really have a bunch of dumb, dumb, dumb friends who signed onto this dumbass idea between taking massive gravity bong hits.

5/4/2007 6:28:15 PM

Quote :

" If your answer is no, do you have any other argument besides infringement of personal freedom? "

no other reason required

5/4/2007 6:39:31 PM

Quote :

"I mean, going to the DMV once every 5 years or whatever pisses me off for months"

for months? seriously?

5/4/2007 6:46:34 PM

The government wants people to provide (taxes) for them. Controlling this sort of thing would not be in their best interests.

5/4/2007 6:49:53 PM

I'm technically opposed to this



but since you people want a license or registration for everything else, I'll say hell yeah, people need government approval before procreation

any violations of this should lead to jail time

there are way too many stupid people on our streets and I don't feel safe!

do you know how many innocent kids are hurt each year by stupid people that should have been aborted!!!

5/4/2007 6:55:29 PM

^^ nah, not SRLSY

5/4/2007 7:06:34 PM

I actually had this discussion with a friend a couple days ago. I wish there was a feasible way to at the very least minimize the number of children a couple had. There is absolutely no good reason why a couple who is on wellfare should be allowed to have more than 2 children until they can get off and stay off of wellfare. I support the right of people, regardless of social class, to reproduce and have/love children, but there should be some kind of balance between supporting faily rights and fiscal responsibility. Maybe the answer is some kind of temporary birth control implanted after the second child is born.... I really don't know. What I do know is that a single mom running around with 10 rail-thin kids wearing tattered clothes is absolutely ridiculous.

On a more personal note, I don't have any kids yet. I am 28 and have been married nearly 8 years, but I have chosen not to. Not because I can't or because I don't someday want them, but because I want to make sure that I can adequately provide for any kid(s) I have. I think having a child is the single biggest responsibility someone can have, and it's a shame that absolutely anyone who has hit puberty has the ability to do so at their whim.

5/4/2007 7:07:22 PM

The real solution is to not give fucking government handouts to people who can't afford children, yet have them anyway.

5/4/2007 8:49:53 PM

I was listening to the radio a couple of weeks ago ... someone called in and suggested taking the kids away rather than providing welfare, that way you can still provide for the child w/o supporting the parents. Someone else suggested taking the kids away AND docking the parent's pay for child support, or if the parent is on welfare reducing/eliminating government support. I think either of these measures would be much more effective than licensing, although I also support subsidizing birth control (IMO it should be IUD or Norplant, not something that requires effort since there's a good chance that'd be too much hassle for the recipients ). BC is a helluva lot cheaper than babies regardless of your perspective.

5/4/2007 9:05:06 PM

remember, you have to have a license to fish.

5/4/2007 9:19:16 PM

My wife and I were watching the "Idol Gives Back" episode on American Idol the other day, and they had the one woman in LA with her 6 kids complaining about how it is hard to live in conditions of the FEMA trailer park.

Then I noticed how young the baby was. SHE HAD ANOTHER KID AFTER THE FUCKING HURRICANE!!!

That really makes me want the government to start sterilizing people...

5/4/2007 10:04:28 PM

Quote :

"         Stupidest Lounge Thread of the Year Award "

5/5/2007 1:05:42 AM

My only question about this idea is how you would enforce it. What are you gonna do if two people decide to have an unlicensed baby? Throw them in jail? But then what happens to the baby? Does it get claimed by the state? Well all that does is tell the poor and irresponsible that they can have children without having to do any of the actual parenting work. But how could you prevent two people from having a baby anyway? I just don't think there's any practical way to enforce something like this, and might ironically make more problems than it "solves."

5/5/2007 1:09:34 AM

It obviously couldn't be done by birth prevention methods. Just abort all the unwanted ones.

You don't fit the legal criteria to have this child?
Abortion room's down the hall.

If not, they'll just be completely fucked for the rest of their life from the penalties imposed on them. Just like in the sci-fi books. You know the families that had a third.

[Edited on May 5, 2007 at 1:21 AM. Reason : ]

5/5/2007 1:20:39 AM

no you are stupid

5/6/2007 11:33:15 AM

^^I'm pretty sure that people would go apeshit if the government suddenly decided it could tell people that they legally have to get an abortion. And not just because of the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate, either.

The real problem with something like this (leaving aside for a moment that it would require a significant amount of governmental intrusion, and very few people want that level of nanny-state) is that there's simply no way to prevent a woman from having a child. You can't really force people to get their tubes tied because those procedures are usually irreversible, so if the parents are later qualified and willing to have a baby they can't. At least not in the au naturale (sp?) way. And then there's the question of who would pay for all those procedures.

Well, I guess I sort of answered my own question. What you might be able to do is remove a woman's eggs once she starts hitting puberty, and then store them in some massive governmental depository. Then when a couple is licensed, they can remove some of her eggs, take a sample of his sperm, and through the miracle of en vitro get her preggers. But seeing as I'm not a doctor, there might be some serious problems with removing a woman's eggs so soon. You'd basically be inducing menopause into teenage girls, and while menopause is something that's fairly well-documented in older women who knows that sorts of effects it will have on someone going through puberty? The body is being thrown into chaos as it is with the introduction of all those hormones, screwing with those levels even more might have some unforseen health problems.

[Edited on May 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM. Reason : blah]

5/6/2007 1:03:40 PM

tell Omar to take this trash back

5/6/2007 1:04:33 PM

this is the most fucked up thing i've ever read. ever. i don't even think this is something hitler considered. you can''t not allow poor people to not have children. many fucked up people come from rich parents anyway.

Quote :

"The real solution is to not give fucking government handouts to people who can't afford children, yet have them anyway."

ya we might as well just shoot the children

even if this did work do you realize what it would result in?

rich people don't even tend to have kids. the average american children per woman is already 1.14. if 2 people are becoming 1.14 people each generation you do the math. Everybody knows poor people have more children than rich people so the nations population would decresase like crazy become 90% mexican.

if this was ever tried the people would revolt so fast



so your real goal is getting stupid people off the street?
there are better ways to do this
1.spread out subsidized housing. having it all in one place is asking for trouble
2.better schools- this is the key
3.mandatory parent counseling
4.temprorary orphanage options for struggling parents

5/6/2007 1:33:57 PM

this thread is retarded.

5/6/2007 1:40:51 PM

Quote :

"Why would anyone think controlled procreation is a good idea? What possible advantages are there?"

The vast majority of the world's problems stem from there being too many goddamn people. I'm not saying the government should necessarily keep people from having children, but I think less procreation, in general, is a very very good thing.

5/6/2007 1:58:07 PM

Quote :

"A: Financial responsibility"

How would the government judge financial responsibility? Do you mean financial well off? If so, there are plenty of good parents that are poor and rich parents who are bad at raising kids. What percentage of Americans have some amount of debt, I don't know but it is pretty damn high. This might not be very responsible behavior, so I guess they can't have kids.

Quote :

"B: Disease screening - C: Genetic screening"

I'm assuming these are one in the same? So many problems with this... What would you screen for? Because someone has a recessive gene for a genetic disorder they can't reproduce? That is silly... You would also be limiting the genetic pool, some genetic disorders also provide immunity to other diseases. We know so little about human population genetics it would be foolish to start a social genetic engineering of the population.

Quote :

"D: Mental screening"

Most studies have shown that the intelligence of the parents has only a very minimal impact on the intelligence of the child. Not only that, but that impact could very well be environmental (raised in a well educated environment). Human intelligence tends to average out.

Quote :

"E: Counseling"

Because social services is so wonderful now, we should expand their powers so you have to go into counseling to have a child? So some random government bureaucrats will be able to tell everyone else how they should raise a kid or even if they can? This is stupid.

Quote :

"Most of the people I know are for controlled procreation"

Expand your social network, because I don't know anyone who thinks like that.

Although this type of thinking was also big with progressive liberals/socialist/feminist back in the day, so don't all be hating on Hitler.

5/6/2007 2:19:49 PM

I say offer money to viable women/men between a certain age to be sterilized. I mean do you think that some crack head or prostitute wants a baby...odds are no.

And have them be the reversible kind as well ie tubes tied or vasectomy. So if Person A was in a position where they didn't want a kid but could use an extra 300 bucks, then let them get sterilized. Now suppose Person A, in the future, manages to get his/her life together and wants to start a family, they can pay to have the procedure reversed. If the person can't pay for it, then most likely they're not in a position where they could financially take care of the kid anyways.

[Edited on May 6, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : a]

5/6/2007 3:31:35 PM

Quote :

"Most studies have shown that the intelligence of the parents has only a very minimal impact on the intelligence of the child. Not only that, but that impact could very well be environmental (raised in a well educated environment). Human intelligence tends to average out."

id like to see these studies that say intelligence is not genetic.

[Edited on May 6, 2007 at 3:45 PM. Reason : cuz the classes ive taken always spout off that 70%+ of GMA is related to genetics]

5/6/2007 3:44:38 PM

Quote :

"G. Should know how to spell license."

5/6/2007 4:43:35 PM