- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- A license to have children
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| A license to have children | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 27 2017, 10:08 PM (1,092 Views) | |
| + Steve | Aug 27 2017, 10:08 PM Post #1 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Do you think this should ever be a thing? I do. I think it's madness that we let anyone have a child just because they have the physical ability to do so, that in no way means someone will bother being a parent at all. We test for everything that involves the lives of other people, particularly when lives could be at risk, driving being the most obvious example. We make sure that people aren't going to get in a car and careen in to a group of people because they don't know what a brake pedal is...but we don't test whether or not complete psychopaths might be having children. Social services will swoop right in and take kids away once they know something bad is going on at home but why do we have to let it get that far, only when it's picked up too, when we can stop so much suffering before it happens? And on the more positive side of things we'd have more educated parents that learn how to look after a child before having one, if they happen to fail the tests involved. So many people who are by no means bad have kids without at all taking in to account how difficult it is, how much money you need etc etc. Thoughts? |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
 |
 
|
| lazerbem | Aug 27 2017, 10:14 PM Post #2 |
 
|
That sounds like a system that would be easy to abuse. It's in spitting distance from eugenics. |
 Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
| Daemon Keido | Aug 27 2017, 10:36 PM Post #3 |
Warmaster of Chaos
|
Not to mention it didn't help China much. If anything, it excacerbated the problem due to a favoured gender. |
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig! The Emperor Protects | |
|
|
|
| Bad User | Aug 27 2017, 10:47 PM Post #4 |
 
|
Cute, but sadly unconstitutional. |
| |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Aug 27 2017, 11:40 PM Post #5 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Yeah but that's China, doesn't mean it couldn't be done properly in reasonable places.
But it's basically no different from what we do anyway, only earlier before children might get abused or otherwise mistreated. Doesn't really matter if you take a kid away from abusive parents they're more than likely going to carry that damage with them for the rest of their lives, possibly even end their lives over it. Why does the selfishness of a***** parents have to come first with no regulation what so ever?
Hardly applies everywhere, not sure why rules made over 200 years ago have to be so rigid anyway, the world is completely different from then. To clarify I don't think anyone who has a child without a license should just be thrown in jail or have the fetus forcefully aborted etc etc but they should be subject to a home check and whatever else to make sure it's actually going to be a healthy environment for the kid/s before s*** potentially goes South. I just find it weird that we control and monitor basically everything else but that when it's so important. Edited by Steve, Aug 27 2017, 11:40 PM.
|
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| + QueenTD | Aug 28 2017, 12:14 AM Post #6 |
My Dear Melancholy,
|
"Subject to home check". That's just...wrong bro. What if they're actually good parents but the people who check their homes are bias due to culture, race, etc. That's honestly doing too much. It's the chance we have to take with parenting. Should there be a pet license too? Or a house license? Or even a baby sit license? |
 Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
|
|
|
| Rockman | Aug 28 2017, 12:57 AM Post #7 |
hoighty-toighty
|
How do you propose enforcing a stop without license on births? What are you going to do when an accident happens? Kill the kid? Put him in another foster home? Oops, daddy didn't register. Looks like its off to the foster home with you Timmy! In Steve's Utopia, foster kids as far as the eye can see right? |
 JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Aug 28 2017, 02:37 AM Post #8 |
=._.=
|
So many problems with this idea, it would mean that only the rich would be able have kids, since poorer families are often overly watched by social services already. Do you know that there are a lot of parents who avoid taking their child to hospital out of fear that their child will be taken away? People have accidents and if their kid gets hurt, they want to do the best for them and take them to hospital, yet in some cases, that child gets taken away from the parents. Also, did you know that if both parents have learning difficulties, they have a higher chance of losing their child to social services? They do and often don't have the ability to fight it. Yeah, parenting licence? No. Offering parenting classes to new parents free of charge? Yes. |
 
| |
|
|
|
| + Green | Aug 28 2017, 03:41 AM Post #9 |
Flashy Thing!
|
I absolutely disagree with this. This would almost be like controlling who is allowed to have sex a basic human function limiting it to only those who can afford it. Not only would only those who can afford to have children have them, those who do have children will be heavily screened and or constantly supervised. PS: The Netflx movie, "What Happened to Monday actually addresses this issue |
   Don't you ever worry that you're on the Devil's side without even knowing it? - DCI John Luther Black power ranger; I do not belong... B.o.B - Mr. Mister | |
|
|
|
| + Son-Goku | Aug 28 2017, 05:28 AM Post #10 |
孫悟空
|
No offense, but the idea seems pretty absurd. I agree with everything that's already been said against it. |
 RP Character Bios Dragon Ball Super: The Super Human Dragon Ball Super: Preparation for the Tournament of Power | |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Aug 28 2017, 07:10 AM Post #11 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Again this already exists so what's different there? And why would it be so simple as just one person shows up and that's it? It's never that simple unless the children are pretty clearly being abused.
Pretty sure these things already do exist. There are many pets you can't just go out and buy, specialized pets. Taking care of a kid is a lot harder than taking care of a dog or a cat.
Already clarified it wouldn't be that quick and severe. I'm not sure why people go against an idea in that way, like there'd be no regulations or anything on something new and all human rights would go out the window...I never said they roll up to a potential parents house with a shotgun ready to put them down. Again what you said there is probably what was going to happen anyway, if a home is so bad that they'd put the kids in care anyway why not get that checked sooner? Why give a***** parents more time to torture kids? It benefits only them.
Not really, if you're just going to run along with it and completely assume what all the criteria would be yeah but you can't envision ANY way it could be done right? In a way that would benefit future children and quickly save them from harm? It's ALWAYS going to go to the s***ter and be based around things like that and what others have said?
Make them mandatory and I agree. Part of what I'd aim for anyway. There's already things like that but s***heads won't go to them so ultimately they only help people who want help. Plenty people have kids to use as slaves or just so they get extra money, nevermind the actual truly evil people out there and what they do with their kids. I don't have to spell that out I imagine. To reiterate for like the fourth time, what I'm suggesting is basically doing what we already do but doing it sooner and better. We already have people go check homes but only when something is reported and often it's far too late to truly help, you can shuffle a kid who's been sexually abused by their parents around foster homes all you want but the damage has already been done. That isn't success. Or you can go to the parents house sooner, see that it's a complete mess, they're obviously drug addicts with needles laying around and/or engaged in various criminal activities and that they're generally bad people and have social services keep an eye on them up to and after the child is born. Who knows? Maybe they'd somehow still be good parents but it's up to them to prove it at that point, surely. Get them some psyche tests, parenting lessons, encourage them to get clean or go straight etc etc And yes before anyone says it, of course people would get around it but that's not a good reason not to do it, why do we bother with driving tests when people might and still do drink and drive then end up killing folk or themselves? That hole can be poked in absolutely everything. |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Bad User | Aug 28 2017, 10:42 AM Post #12 |
|
Hardly applies? I'm sorry, but unless you live in totalitarianism, you can't say 'whatever' to Constitution or any other legal forms that ensure fundamental human rights. What you suggest there, one must think through carefully and create a proper legislative frame that can harmonically cohabit with human rights, otherwise you won't get only people pissed off, but also internal and international legal institutions. And I wasn't talking about any rigid laws, or was I? What do you think? - The benefit of the doubt: unless parents have bad criminal record, placing surveillance measures (or how'd you call them, translating legal terms always beats me...) on them is like admitting they might be guilty. Sounds like a passive form of 'presumption of guilt' to me. You said that authorities take measures only after what's done is done. That's because they can't rightfully take actions if someone is not proved guilty of something yet. - Violation of human rights: authorities' intrusion in the family's private life, a bit of property trespassing... all those with no legal ground. Again, having a baby without a license alone doesn't accuse you of anything yet. - Corrupted ways: do you think that some 'unworthy' parents can't bribe the authorities or use their influence to obtain it? Doesn't prove anything, really. - Bureaucracy: you can't compare this to getting a driver's license. To be able to drive you must learn how to properly operate a car and also respect traffic rules and signs. What manual teaches you how to be a parent, though? There's no absolute manner here. Unless you get to pass a test of common sense like: What do you do if your children break a glass? a) Calmly explain to them that they should be more careful; b) Beat the crap out of them. It's like you're just filling some forms on common sense to prove you're not an ultimate retard. What exactly are the conditions someone has to meet to have the right to procreate? Every country's law is different, I was just talking about our Romano-Germanic system of laws here. Maybe other systems are more...chill. I'm not saying your idea is bad per se. In fact, I also saw lots of poor families around here that make a bunch load of babies to turn them into beggars (because children appeal much more to people's mercy), make them work to bring them money or call social services or national television to make you feel pity for them and send them money. Those are the kind of parents that I'd take not only the right to breed, but also their genitals away. Because they piss the s*** outta me. Unfortunately enough, if one wants to help, they must think of measures that are not prone to be abusive. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 28 2017, 01:14 PM Post #13 |
|
You do know what this sort of idea implies, right? Every man without a license would need to be clipped, otherwise there is always the chance of having an accidental child. Every woman would need to be on some form of birth control or have her tubes tied, and if there's a pregnancy even with birth control in place...? What do you expect to do with that child? You can't just say, "No children without a license; however, if you do have a child we'll just do house checks." In that case, everyone would abuse the system and opt for house checks, and then we'd be no better than a Totalitarian society. Even without the house checks, it is still incredibly Totalitarian to force every citizen to adhere to a certain law that takes away one of their most basic human rights. Contrary to what you may think, having children is an extremely basic human right. It's about as basic as you can get considering it happens naturally and is the only reason for our existence on this planet to begin with. Reproduce, multiply... why else are we here? Not even marriages happen naturally, and we allow anyone to marry. Are you understanding how dangerous this is? The government exists to protect citizens and benefit lives, not to control and manipulate the people. If you think that the government should interfere with personal lives on such an extreme level, then I don't think you should ever have a hand in making decisions for the good of others. We'd go to sleep one night and wake up the next morning in 1984 or Brave New World if that were the case. |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | Aug 28 2017, 01:43 PM Post #14 |
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
Would probably work better the other way around. People who clearly should never have kids should be marked as 'unfit' for parenting and shouldn't be allowed to have kids, and if they do, take the children to child protective services. Oh wait. That sounds an awful lot like our current system. You pretty much took our current system and made it a little bit more awkward so that it may cause very unwanted scenarios. |
      Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Aug 28 2017, 02:05 PM Post #15 |
|
=._.=
|
Yes, that does happen, but it's a minority. Why punish the many for the actions of the few? Impose all the laws you want, evil people will still do evil things, they will find ways around so they aren't caught. Meanwhile, those who want to do the best for a child are punished, they are forced to get a licence and prove they are "good parents". |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:53 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy