Birth Permits?

[unkachuck]

Many of the worlds problems could be ameliorated with less people putting demands on the planet. Yet we continue to expand our numbers. Would you support the idea of Birth Permits? You need a permit or license to show competency, financial responsibilty and intent for many endeavors. Why not for giving birth? Many side benefits could and would accrue.

[tabbycat31]

1. how will this be enforced?

[unkachuck]

3. like and other license....

....people will have to give birth someplace and account for their new member of society....

[vadawg]

7. and how hard do you think it is to give birth out of sight and its easier than you think

to hide in plain sight, look at how easy it is for illegal aliens to hide in plain sight for an example.

[liberalhistorian]

Are you pro-choice? If you are, then do you not see

the blatant hypocrisy in this? Those who are pro-choice claim they don't believe the government should tell women what to do with reproductive decisions, that it's a private matter, the woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, etc., etc., etc. But you then want to turn around and have that same government be able to decide for people when they can make such decisions. Ummm.....no, I don't think so.

[Xenotime]

113. Don't you support abortion?

This would help give the government a reason for making it law. It would send those anti-choice fucks away.

[Xicano]

115. Enter the Sandman..

Like Logan 5 in the upper right of this photo.

[vadawg]

2. you forgot your fucking nuts

do you really want to have the government decide who can have kids, if your so concerned about population then if you off yourself then it will balance at least one of my kids...

[CreekDog]

19. Remember this moment

We agree! :fistbump:

[vadawg]

21. wow, fainting

i guess even we can agree when we see someone more nuts than us..

[unkachuck]

25. "....if you off yourself then it will balance at least one of my kids..."

....no thanks, but you and your kids can perish in the nuclear holocaust to come....

....by the way, are you married? Did you get a license?

[vadawg]

27. yup we got a licence to make it nice and official for the government

but we were married before we went through the courthouse ceremony, unlike you i am hoping we get to the stage were we can no longer all stay on the Earth and are forced to look to the stars, so population growth for me is a natural progression. But please feel free to leave this life if it makes you feel better.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Keep breeding! Technology will save us!

:eyes:

[vadawg]

38. thats my plan :)

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Whatever trips your trigger

With the Duggars it's Jeezus. Either way, it's magical thinking.

[vadawg]

49. magical, nothing magical about it, we just have big families, always have always will

though my wife and i are getting to old really to have any more we will adopt.. nothing wrong with wanting tonnes of kids if you can afford them...

[liberalhistorian]

50. Wow! We actually agree about

two things now, and not just one (the other being homeschooling)! Very well put and right on.

[vadawg]

66. you know we seem to agree on the stuff that says that people should have choices

and not have to have the government dictate everything to us..

[anonymous171]

4. Only if it was progressively priced.

So for poor families it would be $30, for the rich it would be $3 million. Or something like that. This would ensure it would never be adopted, which is good because authoritarian measures are not the answer anyways. Oh and did I mention it would have to renewed with each child?

[Xicano]

116. Whatever the government grants, the government can take away.

Rich people will simply out lobby poor people and it will only result in low income people losing yet more rights. This time one of the most basic rights of all living species - reproductive freedom.

[RidinMyDonkey]

5. I didn't vote yet...

I need a little further elaboration on this. I think it would depend on how the system would work. In essence I'm all for population control, however, I think it should be conducted in a sane manner.

Would you discourage sex?

Force people to use birth control? (How?)

What happened when someone gets pregnant but didn't get a permit? Jail? Yikes!

I don't want to be like China and force abortions. I'm pro choice. I don't want anyone taking away my choices either way.

[unkachuck]

12. no discouragement of sex or anything....

....it would be your responsiblity to acquire the permit if or when you reproduce....

[Kalyke]

110. Here's another: birth control isn't fool proof.

I have two kids. Both conceived whilst using some form of birth control (my daughter was conceived using TWO forms of birth control simultaneously. :silly: )

[Mojambo]

6. Completely unenforceable.

And not even the best way to tackle population control.

The best way is to continue to fight for women's rights in the third world. Educated, empowered women have FAR fewer babies.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Just fucking stupid. If you want the *effect* of that, just make people more wealthy. Duh.

[Mixopterus]

9. Insane

Unethical, and totally unenforceable to boot.

[liberalhistorian]

53. No kidding. And that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Insane, unethical and unenforeable. Now, that's not to say that there aren't plenty of people having children who shouldn't be, and too many children end up abused, neglected, unloved, or even killed because of it. But this isn't the answer, not by a long shot, no freaking way.

[DireStrike]

10. Sorry, no

We have to start thinking about doing something. Maybe a large social drive to discourage having kids in general, and especially if you can't afford to raise them.

If we don't we will just hit resource barriers, and the only way around it at that point is war. No solution, that - just a failure and what WILL happen eventually with NO effort taken.

[anonymous171]

11. Or revolution. Or both.

[parasim]

13. Other.

I fluctuate widely on this issue. At times, I think that yeah, people should have to have licenses to have kids. But, more often I say, Of course not. childbirth should not in any way be controlled by the government.

I mean, I personally know people that will coerce their boyfriend or girlfriend to have children simply for the welfare benefits. If those people had to go through some sort of test to see if they truly should have kids sometimes I think that would be a good thing. Just being honest, here.

It's one of those issues where I just end up arguing with myself.

No, you don't! Yes, I do!

[unkachuck]

17. all attempts to date.....

....to control the worlds population seems to have failed....I guess many people would rather solve our over population problem the old fashion way; by slaughtering people in wars as we cut each others throat over the last drop oil or the last drop of water....

[corkhead]

14. Yes! Hand them out only to those who kill off an old person first. Open Season on fogies for ZPG!!!

:crazy:

[FSogol]

15. If they outlaw birth, then only outlaws will be birthers,...

or only birthers will be born or only outlaws will be bored?

Yeah, I voted: "You're nuts"

[Mojambo]

16. Nice. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

55. Snicker

:rofl: :rofl:

[whoneedstickets]

18. You'd need Sex permits first, or a least a temporary learner's certificate

:)

[HuskiesHowls]

20. Reminds me of a Sci-Fi story I read many years ago

You had to have a permit to have kids...and to get a permit, you had to prove you would be a good parent. You did this by keeping one of the government's robot babies for a month...only a month. But, it was programmed to get progressively worse every day. If you couldn't put up with it, all a man had to do was go get his "D-Ball" shot, and that took care of things permanently. Eventually it got so bad, almost all the men had gotten their shot. Then, one day, the Chinese showed up on the shores of California, and because no one qualified to be parents, all that was left to defend the Good Ole US of A was a bunch of Old Farts.

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me...

[Umbral]

22. Better yet, just tax intercourse. nt

[sam sarrha]

23. there are people at work who arent doing the species a favor by breeding.. ever see squidbillys.??

[Selatius]

24. Give tax credits to people who have no kids. That's a less authoritarian way of doing it. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Good luck with that. We give the credits to parents now.

They will scream bloody murder if they are taken away. By god, they "need" that money to raise their kids today, even though all of our parents managed to do it with just the standard dependent deductions.

[CreekDog]

26. 16 year old gets pregnant and has no permit and no resources to care for the baby

under your permit system, now what?

[unkachuck]

29. the non-adult....

....and the baby would receive support....it's not what the outliers do, it's what the compliant majority will do, and that reduces population growth....

[flvegan]

28. How would you enforce the permits?

Oops, you got pregnant without a permit. I'm going to have to confiscate your penis and cut that baby out of you.

So yeah, you're nuts.

[unkachuck]

31. well....

....you're free to drive a car without a license, if willing to pay the necessary fines....

[flvegan]

33. I'm all for slowing population growth in a huge way

but this isn't the way.

[NMMNG]

30. Why not?

Some people think they should be able to regulate who should be able to marry and/or adopt. One of the excuses they give is "for the sake of the children". In that vein, why should just anybody who is capable of having unprotected sex be allowed to have children? Shouldn't there be some standards? Shouldn't we make sure the prospective parent(s) are fit to raise children?

[liberalhistorian]

58. Who decides those "standards" Who decides

what makes someone "fit" or not? Who decides under what conditions and standards you're "fit" or not? And money often doesn't have a whole helluva lot to do with it. I've known poor and lower-income, lower-middle-class parents who were wonderful and loving parents, and I've known higher-income parents who were shit parents. So, who would decide and how would they do so? No thanks, we don't need this authoritarian bullshit. Anyone who does should go to China.

[NMMNG]

101. Good questions

Now go pose them to the a-holes who want to tell people like me we don't deserve marriage equality, adoption rights, equal access to employment and homes, protection from hate-crimes, etc. They seem to think they have the right to use arbitrary standards to deny us rights. Maybe it's time they face the same bullshit.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. You are a brave soul, my friend. Hope you have your asbestos undies on.

The breeders do not like it when someone questions their sacrosanct right to bring more "miracles" into the world.

[Mixopterus]

36. Breeders?

What a ridiculous term.

What the fuck is this? A Modest Proposal?

[Hello_Kitty]

37. Ooops. My bad.

I should have said Heroes Doing The Most Important Job In The World^TM

:eyes:

[Mixopterus]

43. Keeping the species going?

Pretty damn important, so important that it shouldn't be determined by humans who gets to breed and who doesn't, because that will NEVER work out the way you may think it should.

And yes, breeders is an offensive and dehumanizing term. Swift used the term "breeders" as an intentionally dehumanizing term in "A Modest Proposal" to determine those females who could produce non-productive stock. He was, of course, kidding. You weren't.

So, tell me. Who gets to decide who reproduces and who doesn't? You? What are your ideal criteria?

[NoSheep]

51. Important to keep the species going! That's rich. Over breeding is dehumanizing. eom

[Hello_Kitty]

52. Like our species is in so much danger of dying out.

And too bad if you think "breeder" is offensive. It's an accurate description of what those who reproduce do. They breed. There's nothing more magical and wondrous about two humans copulating and procreating than two squirrels. Really, there isn't, despite how highly we hairless apes think of ourselves and how "important" we think we are.

[Mixopterus]

59. Humans reproduce, yep.

But labeling reproducing humans as breeders is about as offensive as me labeling all homosexuals as faggots, you are reducing them to one component as an identity and that is wrong. It also carries derogatory weight, just like the word "faggot". Maybe we should allow that word because it does describe homosexuals in a categorical sense? Sorry, words carry weight.

And our species would be in danger of dying out if we collectively stopped reproducing, by the way. Additionally, I simply don't see how it would be ethical for humans to decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. As I said before, what are your ideal criteria for who gets to breed?

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Ironically, gay people sometimes call straight people "breeders".

But let me know when the day comes when parents are as oppressed, marginalized, and threatened as LGBT people are. Because from where I sit, y'all seem to get your asses kissed by society. A few snarky comments on the internets and you lose your fucking minds.

[Mixopterus]

65. And that is offensive

For what it's worth my homosexual brother hates that term and makes it a point to correct homosexuals who use that language. Using derogatory language that applies to a group that really can't help their status and their status is ethically/legally neutral or "good" is wrong. Just because they aren't as oppressed or oppressed at all does not negate how wrong it is.

[Hello_Kitty]

71. But oddly enough, it will always be okay to call childless-by-choice people "selfish"

Not to mention "immature" and "unnatural". Especially us childfree women. Boy, do we get the stink-eye and the snide remarks. But hey, I've got a thick skin and I just remind myself that at least I don't have to go home to a couple of screaming kids that I secretly (or not so secretly) resent but I had to have them because "it's what everyone does". :)

There's even an economist (I forget his name but when I remember I'll post it) who advocates childless people being fined because we are, as he puts it, "free riders" by not doing our duty to produce more workers and consumers. I guess he doesn't count the higher taxes we already pay as enough of a penalty. And I guess it's okay for him to propose something like that because, you know, it's not like he was talking about the precious parents or anything.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mixopterus]

74. And it would also be

Equally wrong to vilify and abuse people who make a choice not to have children, which is ethically neutral.

[Hello_Kitty]

100. It's the more ethical choice when one is not suited for parenthood, for whatever reason.

It's a lot more ethical than abusing or neglecting an innocent child, dontchathink?

[Maru Kitteh]

90. Nobody in this thread has shown bigotry to the childless by choice.

'Tis a pity you're unable to return the courtesy.

[Hello_Kitty]

96. Oh you poor dear.

I'm not quite sure how you will ever recover from the trauma of my refusal to worship you because you produced offspring.

Oh oops, is "offspring" a derogatory term too?

[Maru Kitteh]

106. Just because you were abandoned by your parents doesn't give you an excuse to behave so irrationally

and rudely to others.

You give no evidence that you desire an honest discussion. It may be worthwhile to have a rational argument about this topic but you are clearly not capable as long as you keep flinging logical fallacies about like so much feces at the zoo.

[Hello_Kitty]

103. I'm sorry but I dispute your premise that all parenthood is ethically neutral or "good"

I think the "Octomom" situation is a travesty, for example. Those children should be removed from that mentally unstable woman for their own good. But there were people on DU acting like having 14 children total when you have no job and rely on your parents for support is every bit as valid a choice for a woman to make as using contraception or getting an abortion. I call bullshit on that. Using birth control or having an abortion early in pregnancy only affects the woman. Bringing a child into the world affects a lot of other people, not the least of whom is that child.

[vadawg]

68. yeah i guess a few bigoted comments are ok and people should just let it slide

i think if anyone is losing their fucking mind its not the others on this thread..

[Maru Kitteh]

64. Make sure to share that sentiment with the breeder female that squeezd you out next time you see her

[Hello_Kitty]

73. You mean the one who abandoned me as an infant?

Not having much luck finding her but I'll be sure to ask why she missed the memo about how motherhood instantaneously transforms all women who do it into altruistic sainted martyrs.

[Maru Kitteh]

76. Well, at least we're all gaining some insight into you issues, aren't we.

That's rhetorical, by the way.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidneyCarton]

123. So, being that you are not only biased, but have an irrational reason for your position

can we stop taking anything you say on this issue seriously?

[LanternWaste]

120. ...or how civilly, or with regard and respect for others we try to be.

"Really, there isn't, despite how highly we hairless apes think of ourselves and how "important" we think we are..." ...or how civilly we treat others, or the regard and respect for others we may or may not use.

[liberalhistorian]

61. Yeah, actually, it IS pretty damned important.

One of the most important jobs ever. Just because some people fuck it up doesn't mean we all do. You have the right to decide whether or not you want kids, that's fine, people who don't want them shouldn't have them and it's an intensely personal decision that no one else has the right to make for others. I don't like it when people who've chosen not to have children, for whatever reason, are disdained and discriminated against like they're some kind of evil.

But let me tell you this. I also don't like it when childless-by-choice people, or people who don't like kids, disdain those of us who DO have children and who enjoy being parents and love our children. That's just as bad and just as unfair. And, no, honey, I'm not a breeder. I am a MOTHER. And I only have one, anyway, so I'm afraid "breeder" doesn't quite apply.

[Critters2]

95. You bred at least once.

And there are other possibilities besides "childless by choice".

[Critters2]

94. !

:spray:

[spoony]

47. So, to be clear, you are against reproductive freedom

and do not believe it is a right. Gotcha.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. I think people should reproduce responsibly.

You think they should have as many babies as they want, regardless of their ability to care for them properly and the impact to the planet.

Not all reproductive choices are equal and ethically neutral.

[Mixopterus]

60. Strawman

Belief in reproductive freedom =/= reproducing as much as possible regardless of consequence.

[liberalhistorian]

62. You mean you believe in "choice" and "reproductive freedom"

as long as the woman does what YOU want her to do. Got it. Jezuz, talk about authoritarian.

[Hello_Kitty]

69. Why are you making assumptions about what I think?

Where on this thread have I called for any specific policies to be imposed? I haven't. I actually don't think coercion is necessary. All it requires is a paradigm shift. The social and political pressure put on people to follow a life script and produce children needs to cease. It needs to become okay not to be a parent and people need to be honest with themselves about whether or not it's something they really want to do, or are suited to do, before they do it. If that were to happen, not only would the birthrate drop like a stone but so would child abuse and neglect.

[Gormy Cuss]

35. Works well in China.

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Actually, it spared them from even worse famines than the ones they were already suffering.

As fucked up as China is in a lot of ways, the one child policy wasn't just some arbitrary edict handed down by the PTB because they thought one-child families were nicer. And it's their misogynistic patriarchal culture that's the cause of girl baibies being killed, not the one-child policy.

[Gormy Cuss]

46. The one child policy is hopelessly corrupt.

People have kids without authorization (teens for example who can't legally get married and therefore can't legally have a child) and families go broke paying the fine so that the child becomes a person and male children are stolen, among other problems in addition to the sex selection one you mentioned. That problem would likely be replicated in other countries because they're far from the only culture with such a strong patriarchal culture -- hell, it would happen here too.

The speed of their population growth has slowed (and there is some debate about whether one child gets the credit or other changes in the country) but it's still growing and there have been some pretty undesirable societal side effects associated with the forced abortions and the like.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

67. Oh, I see. So, you're all for "choice" and you want the

government out of women's bedrooms and not making reproductive choices for them, but you have no problem with a government, such as China's, making such decisions for women and families regardless of what the women and their families may want and what THEIR "choice" is. Got it.

Do you have any idea of the suffering in China this policy has caused? That babies who are born to mothers who already have one child and who don't have governmental "permission" to have more are put down because it's "illegal for them to live?" Or that people are brutally punished for having more children illegally without "permission" of the government. Yet, they still continue to have children.

You know why? Because governments CANNOT legislate reproductive decisions successfully, not ever. China's as bad as Romania under Ceucescu, who was the polar opposite; women were forced to have as many children as they physically could, had to pay fines if they didn't, had to undergo "vaginal inspections" to ensure they hadn't had a miscarriage or abortion, etc., etc. Both governments are just as bad. The fact that you claim to be "pro-choice" and yet have no problem with governments making such decisions for women as long as it's what YOU think should happen is so ironically hypocritical that I don't even think there's a word for it.

[Hello_Kitty]

102. I'm not advocating for China's policy.

I'm merely explaining why the government felt it was necessary. People invariably invoke draconian policies like those in China or Romania under Ceaucescu when the subject of overpopulation is raised, as if it's inconceivable that you could incentivize having fewer children without extreme coercion.

I don't necessarily agree with the OP and I haven't even voted in his poll but I find it amazing that people recoil with such revulsion at the mere notion of requiring a license for parenthood - ostensibly one of the most important jobs there is - when many other far less important decisions require you to obtain a license or satisfy some type of qualifications. I can't just up and decide to sell houses or be a nurse without credentials but isn't requiring me to have those credentials depriving me of my "choice" to do those things? I mean, what if I want to be a real estate agent or nurse NOW? Who are YOU to tell me I can't "choose" to be one? They wouldn't even let me walk into the nearest elementary school and start teaching kids multiplication tables without the proper certification. I'd also have to get fingerprinted and checked to make sure I didn't have a criminal record before they'd let me near those kids. Can't get married or drive without a license either. Why aren't people as up in arms about the myriad other licenses they are required to get as they are about the prospect of having to get one to be a parent? Again, I doubt that licensing parenthood would be fair or feasible, but I really don't understand people freaking the fuck out at the mere suggestion of doing it. How is it that a job considered to be the most important one in the world just so happens to be the one that we've decided that absolutely anyone should be able to do? Weird.


Honestly, I'd be ecstatically happy if we could even mention the subject of overpopulation without people freaking the fuck out and screaming about China and Soylent Green. I would consider that a major step forward.

[Forkboy]

114. It was awesome....except for all those dead female babies.

And why do I get the feeling that if a man called a woman a "breeder" you'd shit your pants?

[SidneyCarton]

124. Yes, and corrupt officials seize second children, and sell them to American families to adopt.

What an excellent system!

[proteus_lives]

39. Hell no.

If I want to have kids, I'll have kids. The decision on how many will be up to the future Mrs.Proteus and me. No one else.

[madamesilverspurs]

40. Even with examples like glenn beck in the gene pool

I have to say no effing way.

[scarletwoman]

45. Do you know who actually puts the greatest demands on the planet?

It's not poor people having children, it's RICH people using up way more resources than the planet can sustain.

Poor people in third world countries barely have any carbon footprint at all -- it doesn't matter how many children they have. A bare subsistance lifestyle doesn't pollute, doesn't create any waste to speak of.

It's the wealthy few who endanger the earth with their greed and insatiable consumption. Throttle the rich and the planet will manage to sustain the rest of us quite well.

sw

[NoSheep]

54. Wow. I'm generally on the side of zero population growth but you may have something here.

I think you've just adjusted my point of view as to how I feel about people having children. I didn't think anything or anyone could change that. Cool. I like learning new things. That's why I come here. I hate the arguing and I get caught up in it myself at times. I get frustrated at rehashing the same crap over and over. But you really have given me something to think about. Thanks.

[scarletwoman]

126. Wow, back atcha! Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I never expect to be able to change anyone's mind, at best I simply hope to be able a make a case for looking at an issue from a different angle.

Thank you very much for being willing to look at this issue from a different angle.

sw

[anonymous171]

70. +1. This fear over excessive population growth is ridiculous

[scarletwoman]

128. Allow people control over their own lives, make education accessable, and the "problem"

solves itself.

[Control-Z]

56. "Nuts"

Make family planning, sex education, birth control and abortion services readily available, easily accessible, widely acceptable (no stigma, no shame, no religious hooey), and federally funded to all woman, regardless of age, race, religion, class...

[AlienGirl]

75. Don't go there. Just don't. nt

[orleans]

77. this will change the

"I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN!"

to

"I DIDN'T ASK FOR A BIRTH PERMIT!"


and something to add to a parent's list of crap to hold over the kid's head:

i gave you a sweet sixteen party
i bought you a car on your 18th birthday
i even got you a birth permit, damnit!

or to alter the: "i brought you into this world, i can take you out"
to
"i brought you into this world, i can revoke your permit"

[gopiscrap]

78. I'm all for it..there are too many fucking people in this world

[vadawg]

79. you first buddy, but can i have whatever money you have once youve offed yourself

thanks

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

80. Yes. Children (under 18) should not be allowed custody of their own babies.

When a child is born, it needs adult supervision, not some 15 year old who can't feed a damn dog twice a day, muchless raise a child. We should require all under age parents to have guardians for their kids until the parent is 18.

We have to limit births more aggressively.

[vadawg]

81. is this worldwide or just in the US you are talking about

[TexasObserver]

83. Just the USA

Our budgets are heavily burdened by the decisions of our most incompetent citizens to have children. We need limits and incentives, to help curb population growth.

[vadawg]

84. so what about people who come here from abroad, do their kids get taken

if they are too young or have lots of kids, i dont think the policies would ever work, who is going to remove the kids..

[TexasObserver]

86. I'm not sure what you're asking.

I'm suggesting that we recognize that babies should have adult guardians, and that we try to limit population growth through limitations and incentives. People who come here from anywhere else will have to get on board with that.

[vadawg]

87. okay if someone comes to the states ie a refugee with their family

and they have 15 kids do you take the kids away or send them back. or if the mother is under 18 does she have the kids taken away...

[TexasObserver]

88. That's not even a realistic hypothetical.

It's safe to assume the State Department doesn't have many refugees with large families, and if they do, it's not a number large enough to worry about.

[vadawg]

89. okay refugees was just one group, what about border crossers

you do realise that a lot of big families cross the border from mexico... is this hypothetical better, and i know its anecdotal but i have a prisoner who is one of 6 brothers who came here with there mother illegaly..

[TexasObserver]

91. I'm not going to engage in one of these long, meaningless interchanges with you.

My approach applies to all. Would we allow immigrants to enter with large families or involve parents who are under 18? Of course not. And I don't care what variation on theme you might think you have.

[spoony]

92. Well since it's not a realistic proposal

I don't see the harm. And I think the GOP is proof that our most "incompetent citizens" are above the age of 18. Stupid people age, too. Your plan, beside being monstrous, would be futile.

[vadawg]

93. yup i dont think they see the dangers in allowing the government to control our very reproduction

how long until the start to socially engineer society to either be whiter, blacker, more male, more female etc etc etc.. scarey stuff

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. FFFFFFFFFFFFuckingnuts.

[Maru Kitteh]

107. LOLZ. +1

[dysfunctional press]

97. utterly ignorant concept.

:facepalm:

[Cerridwen]

98. Educate girls and women. Silly that?

Time and time and time and time again it has been shown that educating girls and women has helped to reduce the number of humans "brought forth" upon this planet.

Wanna play? Educate the girls and women.

BTW, that would be "world's" problems and "fewer" people. Yeah, my inner grammar nazi came out.

[krispos42]

99. Over a hundred comments and nobody had mentioned Larry Niven?

Sheesh. Look forward, read science fiction.



Much of Larry Niven's works deal with a future Earth where the "Fertility Laws", enforced by a "Fertility Board" that issues breeding licences, which seem to be based either on genetic makeup, intellectual capacity, or contribution to society. Some people don't get any, some get 1 (replace yourself, basically) and a rare few get "unlimited". Great contributions can get an otherwide-flawed person (say, with a genetic defect) a license.

Manatory use of birth control (a once-a-year shot) is enforced by a worldwide police force. Punishment for unlicensed birth is the permanent sterilization of the parents and the offspring.

[TheKentuckian]

104. I read something similar to that in a theoretical future book

In this case it worked a little differently. First of all it was premised on a greatly increased lifespan with the help of genetics which would obviously require a much different view of reproduction and resources as well as an increased sense of stewardship of the Earth. The environment and the creatures we share the world with can only take so many modern humans that live a thousand plus years (even with much more Earth friendly living). So, the deal was that all the genetic material would be collected and people would be sterilized then the concept of one person leaves another may enter. People no longer raised their own offspring (if they were inclined to rear kids) but would instead raise the offspring of another couple that had passed on, making everyone adopted and brought up only by people that wanted to be and were suited for being parents.

I think there was a "key" mechanism built into the sterilization process that acted as a fail safe in case there was a tech crash so we'd still be able to revert to the old fashioned method. The concept is probably pretty alien to most but it wiped out overpopulation, racism, unwanted children, and family predators in one fell swoop.

We do need to be able to open mindedly explore these kinds of ideas because we are probably in the last generations of not having a much greater hand in our own mortality. There is a shift coming and many of us should expect to see the day.

[liberalhistorian]

105. This issue is actually a fairly common

theme in science fiction of all kinds. Has been from the beginning of the genre.

[mnhtnbb]

108. I have said, for years, that people should have a license to reproduce.

You need a license to get married. You need a license to drive a car. You need a special license
for a motorcycle, truck, or bus. You need a hunting or fishing license. Why, when it takes
at least 18 years to raise a child to become a productive member of society should there not
be some minimum requirements?

I have no problem with birth permits--none at all.

[Toucano]

109. Only the rich should have the right to reproduce!

Sterilize the poor and end poverty!


Isn't this what the Glen Beck's want?

[Xicano]

111. What next? A Logan's Run type society?

Where everyone is killed at an age before they get old?

[earth mom]

112. People should just realize that anything other than a couple having more than 2 kids

is nothing but selfish and egotistical and most importantly so harmful to our mother earth.

[seabeyond]

117. and all those that get preg without permit? forced abortion? nuts.... nt

[Taverner]

118. I like the ends but not the means

However, I have no problem limiting deductions for children to 2

[clu]

119. permit, no

training class, yes.

[SidneyCarton]

121. And who, pray tell, would determine competency, etc...

Spoken like someone who imagines we will never see another GOP administration, or that folks like Palin, Bachmann, Dobson et al, will never again achieve the level of political influence they once had.

I'm sorry, I would just as soon not allow these people to have even more intrusive control in what happens in Mrs. Carton's womb than they already have.

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

122. What (or when) would be the point of enforcement? n/t

[ieoeja]

125. Isn't America's native born population decreasing?

If not for immigration wouldn't our population be decreasing? In which case your permits only work if we force other countries to install this process.

Simpler just to kill 'em.

[ddeclue]

127. FAIL FOR MAJOR LEAGUE STUPIDITY

and who exactly gets to decide who can procreate and who cannot?

:eyes:

[Extend a Hand]

130. education and providing women with real opportunity

has been shown to reduce family size over and over again. It seems to me that this would be a much better choice. I think a number of industrialized countries already have negative birth rates.

[DainBramaged]

131. I like pie