Should the State have the power to license child births?
-
most definitely we couldn't do with out that
-
"Should the State have the power to license child births?"
No.
[flash=600,400:1653kuhc]http://www.youtube.com/v/G8kCOsfM15c?version=3&[/flash:1653kuhc]
-
Hold on! Most seem to be missing the point that the State (= Government) IS the people. So, the question could be phrased as 'Should the People have the power to license child births?
-
@mike lucey said:
Hold on! Most seem to be missing the point that the State (= Government) IS the people. So, the question could be phrased as 'Should the People have the power to license child births?
I'd like to live in that country. Which one is it?
-
Jeff / Andy, I don't think you believe that the State = Government = People and are not happy about the situation! If so, there is only one way to change that in your cases and that is to join a political party or start your own!
Most democracies operate under the political party system, not perfect by any means but its best we have currently. So there is no point in not being happy with it. If you want to have an effect you know what to do.
On subject of the Party Political System! I think it is now fast becoming a totally archaic and obsolete system considering the technology that is available to even our kids. I am talking about instant communication devices, mobile / cell phones. These devices would allow informed and conscientious citizens to be involved in an ongoing voting system that is currently being passed over to career politicians / parties. The politicians / political parties would probably still be needed but only as implementers not decision makers .... the People (conscientious) would but that's another subject.
-
Sorry, I didn't have a fully formed thought earlier.
While I think the "ideal" makes sense. The practical implications are just very fraught. How would you protect minorities and immigrant groups, etc. Who would write the regulations? Just look at food regulations as an example. The interested parties with the most clout (read: industry groups) write the legislation, and hardly anyone is the wiser or can do anything about it. I can only imagine once you have any teeth to this sort of regulation, it would make the abortion debates would look tame. -
If the purpose is to stem population growth, then without a global agreement the point is moot. And since I fail to see for what other purpose allowing the state to have this control mechanism, I gotta say NO.
I can also predict that this would lead to a kind of profiling, on the states behalf, and I don't think the state should interfere with the natural evolution of the species. For better or for worse.
Oh no!!! What have I said!
Man Mike your a little **it disturber
-
Mike, I think we're at a crossroads all right, but I think we will go the wrong direction for a bit longer before things are turned around. Corporations = Government but, government =/= the people at this point. Maybe not completely, but it's far too close for my comfort. SOPA/PIPA is the most recent good example.
The problem is that the fox is in charge of the hen house. There is no real chance for reform when the people in charge stand to lose the most by those reforms. Term limits. Campaign finance caps. Limits on civil servant salaries. Prohibitions on non-monetary or indirect contributions. The list goes on. No way are they going to vote themselves a pay cut or cap.
We need a different ballot system, not a different party system. A ranked voting system would give a real shot at another party being able to form and be elected, rather than what we have now (in the US) that ensures that one party or the other will always be elected; no great loss to the losing party regardless. Of course, the current parties enjoy the status quo and would start a media campaign trying to convince the public of their inability to figure such a difficult system out and any invented pitfalls of the system.
Perhaps we can get corporate sponsors to afford child licenses? Meet my son, John ConAgra Smith, and my daughter, Jennifer Government...
-
I was under the impression that this thread was concerned with the problems of this world, not with making excuses in the next.
-
Given that we probably will have to start introducing measures to curb population growth at some point; and given that such measures are probably more palatable in the form of simply making it less affordable to have kids, rather than proscriptive legislation; the church doesn't seem to have made a very good start on this.
Here in the UK, there are plans afoot to cap the total amount of benefits received by the unemployed to that of the average pay for those in work...around £26K. The main opponents of this are leading churchmen, including the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, who argue that this will hurt the children of such families; and that child support should be taken out of any such equation.
There have even been allegations that this is a form of social engineering, especially as the minister responsible, Lord Freud, argued for a cap not to save money but to turn around lives because it was not moral, he argued, to consign children to a life in which work was not the norm - or to give more in benefits to families than the average family could earn in work.This doesn't bode well for our future prospects of taking any necessary hard decisions....and I'm pretty sure we will have to take them at some point.
-
While I think that many would like to believe that people would have enough motivation, desire, pride or whatever to get off the dole and have an honest job it would seem that in reality there will always be a segment of the population that, given the opportunity, will take the avenue of least effort. Increasing the amount given to welfare would only feed this problem. There ought to be some sort of work program for welfare recipients, even if it's just handing out fare rate cards from the tollway booth. The kids get used to this lifestyle and can perpetuate it, and there's no way to cut welfare without hurting them. The parent(s) in many cases are not models if fiscal or social responsibility.
-
@unknownuser said:
Hold on! Most seem to be missing the point that the State (= Government) IS the people. So, the question could be phrased as 'Should the People have the power to license child births?
On topic:
License?
sterilization is the best way. IMO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PAyXh3U7Ak
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055031/I mean,
No, you hold on.
If I recall correctly on the rules of this forum, racist comments are not acceptable.
So this "Should the People have the power to license child births?" is what racism exactly is.
To the moderators: Please delete this thread. Think about it. -
-
@ Starling75
This is quite different, another tragedy but china is facing a disaster.
Nothing to do with licenses on individuals.
This thread is still here?
A moderation issue.
-
Use the report feature to explain what is the issue with the thread.
-
You have an unusual interpretation of 'racism'...
Here's the 'official definition'
@unknownuser said:Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term "racism" is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature (i.e. which harms particular groups of people), and which is often justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science.
Modern usage often equates "racism" and "racial discrimination" and defines the latter term only as applying to pernicious practices. Differential treatment of racial groups that is intended to ameliorate past discrimination, rather than to harm, goes by other names (e.g. affirmative action); the characterization of this practice as "racism", "racial discrimination" or "reverse discrimination" is normally only done by its opponents, and typically implies a belief in the harmful nature of the practice with respect to the groups not receiving assistance.
Racism is popularly associated with various activities that are illegal or commonly considered harmful, such as extremism, hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc.
"Racism" and "racial discrimination" are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of their somatic (i.e. "racial") differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination.
I fail to see how any discussion here about whether or not 'the state' [the people] should be allowed to control the reproduction of their citizens... could be construed as racism/racist or any 'illegal' activity
It's a debate, not a statement of fact or opinion.
China does this.
India does not.
Discuss...Now if I were to say***, "The Greeks are useless... and therefore none of them should be allowed to breed!"... then that would be [very] racist - and directly against the TOS !
***For the avoidance of doubt, I do not subscribe to this hypothetical stance, in any way or form.
I've not seen anyone take a position like this here, when discussing this valid issue...
Most posters have been against the idea; and if that puts them against say the Chinese government's position it's not 'racist' against the Chinese; any more than you perhaps disagreeing with the Iranian government's foreign policy could be construed as a denigration/criticism of all things Persian...Please explain how this thread is 'racist' - perhaps I am just being 'thick'
Report it with a proper explanation and it will be considered... -
@unknownuser said:
Please explain how this thread is 'racist'
LOL
I won't report it, but the title itself, smells racism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PAyXh3U7Ak
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055031/
Try to watch this movie, this classic, if not already.
I can't explain it better.BTW
@unknownuser said:
You have an unusual interpretation of 'racism'...
Here's the 'official definition'TIG, I really don't care what this official definition says. I prefer other definitions. Or definitions written on constitutions of democratic countries.
It's very easy to group individuals, how many times we have see this...@unknownuser said:
Now if I were to say***, "The Greeks are useless... and therefore none of them should be allowed to breed!"... then that would be [very] racist - and directly against the TOS !
No, they almost said that greek old people should not be allowed to live. "Officially"
-
I think that something is getting 'lost in translation' here.
To a native English speaker the topic's title is a simple question.
"Should the State have the power to license child births?"
It's up for debate and doesn't suggest any opinion as being correct.
An alternative wording, like this,
"Shouldn't the State have the power to license child births?"
is loaded, as it suggests that the State should have the power, and now you are to argue against it, unless you agree...
'The State' means any government in any country, so perhaps a more general phrasing like,
"Should any Government ever have the power to limit, control or stop any of its citizens breeeding?"
Personally I would hope that most right-minded respondents would answer 'No' - but then most would need to add an 'except...'
There might be cases of people with severe disablilities or genetic abnormalities where perhaps reproducing might be at the very least unwise for that person, their family and of course the yet to arrive child.
The real problem comes when those in power make decisions based on an ideology that might not be simply 'caring' - and then they start deciding that one 'category' of people should either be stopped from breeding [or at least discouraged from doing so] because they are somehow 'inferior', while another 'category' of people [almost certainly to which those in power belong] should be encouraged to breed because they are in some way 'superior'.
The Nazi death-camps or Cambodia's killing-fields, being prime examples.
However, this stance is not necessarily 'racism' - unless this categorizing is based principally on 'race' [as was Nazism] - so saying 'The Greeks should not be allowed to breed; but the Germans can!' IS racist - BUT saying that 'Intellectuals should not breed!' or conversely 'People who earn less than €50,000 per year should not breed!', is equally bad, but that discrimination is not based on race, but on things like social-status or income that transcend race.
Saying 'People with red hair should not be allowed to breed.' becomes an awkward area, as they will tend to come from certain ethnic groups, but of course you can find Irishmen, Britons, Greeks and Iranians with red-hair, so it's really 'eugenics' rather than 'racism', when you try to suppress a trait that is thought of as 'impure'... Like 'People with an IQ below 75 should not breed!'...
So it's quite possible to take up a position that is very very 'wrong', but that is not 'racist' at all.
The topic/title in no way suggests a 'racist' issue, you might infer that but then that's from your brain and not the topic/title itself... It may well be that any stand that supports the limiting of breeding is 'wrong', but there are many kinds of 'wrongness', NOT just 'racism'... -
@unknownuser said:
Should the State have the power to license child births?
Definitely not! Ofcourse the state could control population through harsher economical measures similar to how they already do, but should not put a ban on somebody's right to bear children. That would only create the posibility for things to go wrong.
-
As TIG says, its only a simple question! I'm not advocating it, only wishing to hear opinions. I can see good reasons for its consideration and others for its non consideration. I have outlined a my honest thoughts above.
Advertisement