- 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 (1,096 Views) | |
| * Mitas | Aug 28 2017, 02:36 PM Post #16 |
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
|
I think in theory this sounds good, but in practice it's pretty much impossible to implement. Short of forceful sterilisation, which shouldn't happen in anything but the most extreme of circumstances, there's no way to enforce it. Like has been said before, if we're allowing people who have kids without the hypothetical licence to keep their children subject to home checks, what's stopping everyone from just doing that? And then how is that any different to what we have now and how does that solve your issue? There's also the subjectivity of what makes a good parent. Then there's the possibility that becoming a parent is precisely what it takes for somebody who may fail the test beforehand to shape up into somebody who would then pass the test. I do get the sentiment behind it. I think it's often overlooked how much responsibility a parent has to set their child up for a happy and well-adjusted life. There's definitely an idolisation of life, an 'any life is better than no life, just be thankful to be alive' attitude which I don't believe is true, and that extends into parenting. Couples bring life into this world as if it's some achievement without thinking forward to raising it. But that's just something that's going to happen when it is so easy to create life. |
 "Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
 |
 
|
| EMIYA | Aug 28 2017, 02:55 PM Post #17 |
"I am the bone of my sword."
|
There's no reason to change the system we have,only to improve it but that improvement shouldn't come at such an extreme cost to the fundamental human rights of people. Right now, we have a system that is designed to help needed children, but there's only so much you can do. The same way we can't have a police officer standing outside every establishment, making sure nobody's intoxicated so that we have 0 chances of a alcohol related incident. There are simply limits and costs society has. We have no point to use such as easily abused system. Some children are going to have it bad and the only chance we can give is to implement the system we have now and get them checked on. We can't save every single child in the world and if saving every single child comes at the cost of denying fundamental human rights, sorry, a bunch of children are going to have to get over it. The fundamental rights of the vast majority should not be hindered by the evils of the minority. |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Aug 28 2017, 03:32 PM Post #18 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
I never said it would have to be that strict or extreme for starters, obviously that wouldn't ever and shouldn't ever happen unless extreme as said. What do you mean in that underlined bit? The house checks aren't an option for people or do you mean the government would abuse it? The house checks would be part of proof that you can raise a child or something that would happen if you were found to be pregnant without a license to have a child, in most cases they would turn out fine anyway. Gaining a license would show someone can look after a child and would educate them in how to do so, and if it was a mandatory thing to have a child without question then at least people will do it, people who dodge it would get caught out eventually. I dislike the idea of being able to have a child being a human right purely on the grounds that it completely ignores the child themselves and their rights or their safety. Someone who's had 5 kids already and abused and beaten them all absolutely should not be allowed another child just because they're physically able to imo, I see no logic to that. Plenty people out there are just complete scum and it's only once they start making other people suffer that anything is done about it, even though it's obvious what's going to happen anyway. Why should children be subjected to that?
This makes it sound like it's a terrible deal for people who can reasonably look after a child though and that's not what I'm imagining here. All people who can have one have to do is some basic psychological tests, to prove they're not bats*** insane which of course most people won't be. A home check to make sure they don't live in a mouldy pig sty. Some lessons/courses on basic childcare, how to change nappies etc etc And whatever else would be appropriate. What's bad about that for people who are genuinely committed to having a child and would be decent parents? Sure, it elongates the process but ultimately they might learn how to look after their future kids better and that only helps everyone in the family. And everyone who's completely incompetent, not willing or just really reeeally shouldn't have kids has an eye kept on them if necessary. Or they just learn how to be a parent, which I doubt any of you would say is a negative thing. How would we afford all this? Hell if I know, it's a hypothetical. Maybe we'll have an insane economic boom in future and the cost of this would be realistically viable, not really the point anyway. As I've explained a bit more, does everyone still strongly disagree? Or do you think it could ever be done correctly in a way that's genuinely beneficial? I feel like we're going to have to think about it at some point anyway if the birth rate keeps going up and up for the next couple hundred years. (though a lot of that is third world countries and such) |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Aug 28 2017, 07:32 PM Post #19 |
=._.=
|
I still strongly disagree and see no benefit to having a parent license. Don't punish the many for the actions of the few. |
 
| |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Aug 28 2017, 09:37 PM Post #20 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
But what are you deciding is the punishment? If you can raise kids and have the faculties to do so, you lose nothing and possibly gain knowledge. And if you're the sort of person who really shouldn't have kids anyway...how is that any sort of loss we should care about? It's better kids aren't born to vile, evil people...isn't it? What is this perceived loss in anything I've said? I don't see how just anyone should casually be allowed to have a child no matter how much of a monster they might be, just because they can physically produce one. We regulate pretty much everything else so not sure why this particular is too far, you're already not allowed to do whatever you want with your own body. I would take a s*** in public to demonstrate that but I'd be tossed away 
|
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| EMIYA | Aug 28 2017, 09:57 PM Post #21 |
|
"I am the bone of my sword."
|
If its going to cost the fundamental human rights of people, then no, it isn't worth it. We have a system in place to help with such a thing. This is what social and child services are for, this is what part of the judiciary system we have is for. We can't go around controlling people's lives, trying to pinpoint every single person that will do something wrong. Evil isn't something that's blatantly going to appear that can be easily seen on a person. Someone who abuses a child isn't going to be walking around with a Joker-esque grin, talking about how much they want to violate children. A pedophile isn't going to be strutting around with hundreds of pics of children in their pocket and laugh behind someone. People who end up abusing children, don't even necessarily start out like that and abuse isn't just physical contact, its mental and even neglect. Now we have something for this, but trying to catch it before the act is impossible. Because there is no act to catch. Everything you've tried to bring up is something we have as a society and what groups like child and social services are for. The most you can do is improve upon those systems but if its going to completely deny fundamental human rights, it isn't worth it. If a few unruly people somehow get through the system, that's just the cost taken to ensure we keep those fundamental rights. Nobody wants to have a system barge into their homes, demanding licensees, or telling them exactly how to be a parent. Nobody wants such basic privacy broken. Everything has costs, and people would much rather have a flawed but still workable system that we do now, then a system that may not even necessarily work, can be easily abused and denies fundamental human rights. |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Aug 28 2017, 10:42 PM Post #22 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
And those are a response, not an effective solution by any means. They can only help after something has happened and potentially years after. (not that it can truly be "solved" s***ty people will always pop up) What fundamental human rights that really matter would be denied by this, really? Like I said the checking and lessons would elongate the process of having a child by like a few months but ultimately people would be better equipped to look after one. What part of that in particular is truly bad? Stopping people who are completely, stupidly unprepared from rushing in to having a child is bad? And if someone is a volatile person who will harm any child they have...why do their fundamental rights matter more than the poor children they'll come to destroy?
Nobody wants to be generally treated like crap, beaten, raped or even prostituted out by their own parents and yet these children have no say in the matter, do they? Boohoo if people don't want someone checking whether or not their home would be suitable for a child, if it isn't then why should they be having a child in the first place? Why is it their right to bring a life in to a torturous existence? Everyone else is fine, they are in no realistic way hindered by this. And like it or not there are wrong and right ways to be a parent and we already enforce most of it, the whole "You have no right to tell people how to be a parent" thing doesn't make much sense, why do parents get to have absolute dominion over their children without care for the child themselves? That attitude suggests that a parent always knows best, which just isn't true. Actually scratch that, I'm sure all parents know what's best for their kids but many just don't care and that's far worse.
Yeah...but answer me, what if it wasn't? If you're going to assume everyone who runs it is an easily corruptible piece of s*** you can easily paint that picture but that itself is also a hypothetical. What if this happened in the future when such corruption wasn't absolutely everywhere? Would it still somehow not work out better for kids in the end? Children are the future. I have no idea why we should be so hung up on the feelings of any a***** parents they have that do horrible things to them, everyone in this thread would sooner help the children than the disgusting, evil parent so why is it inherently negative to want to help them before they're hurt, before they're irreparably broken by those who were meant to care for them. And again, any parents who aren't a*****...lose nothing at all. Maybe slightly poorer families will be visited more, a couple of times a month or less, to make sure they're still feeding the kids properly. That's...bad? I dunno, maybe living in a s***ty area changes how I see this. So many kids walking to school with shabby clothes, obviously poor nutrition, heads full of lice, rotten teeth and pretty clear psychological issues from s*** parents you can hear shouting at them several streets away over the most mundane things. And that's not even considering what goes on behind closed doors, when people can't hear what's going on. Anything that would make parents less self centred/make them more knowledgeable or just get the kids out of there sooner is good in my eyes. Why should they have the right to trample on the rights of those they bring in the world until someone finally notices or actually bothers to say something? Bringing a child in to the world doesn't give you a license to be a walking piece of trash and it quite obviously doesn't automatically make you a good parent. Edited by Steve, Aug 28 2017, 10:43 PM.
|
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Aug 28 2017, 11:19 PM Post #23 |
|
=._.=
|
Licences cost money, a lot of money, so innocent people have to pay money to have a licence to what, breed? How does that make sense! There is already a system in place to punish those who abuse children, there is law, to punish those who break it. Don't punish people before they have committed a crime, otherwise we may as well have shopping licences as well because some people shoplift. Maybe a licence to talk too, some people say nasty things that break the law, we can't have that happening. Definitely an internet licence, incase someone misuses the internet.
Human rights.
Some people do have children by accident, currently, that isn't an issue. There is support around if they need it or the child can go into adoption, which isn't often good for the child. If they need a licence, then that means having a child is breaking the law, which comes with penalties, so people are punished for something that isn't their fault. That's how licences work, you break them and something bad happens.
That's because there's a law for that, it would fall under public indecency and possibly others, you can take a dump outside if you want, like if you do it in the public woodland, that is allowed. See, countries have a thing called law, that usually covers most things, but you should never punish people for things they haven't done yet. This isn't Minority Report. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Aug 29 2017, 06:55 AM Post #24 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
I never stated that it would cost anything, probably should have been more clear on that.
The "something bad" there is that people check up on them to make sure they aren't psychopaths and that their house isn't a total deathtrap, what's bad about that? If their house is that bad then absolutely the child deserves a safe environment regardless of how their awful parents feel. If they can't or won't provide a better home, are awful people or won't bother to learn how to look after the kid, at that point it might be taken away. Before they've totally abused it, not fed it properly or worse.
Again, there is no "punishment" involved until there's something punishable and if there IS something punishable...what's the problem? If a social worker rolled up and someone was trying to get their baby to snort cocaine who are you worried about there? The poor parent that doesn't want someone visiting their house or the baby that has a loooong and horrible life ahead if they stay? The current systems suck and maybe it's an extreme way to improve them but what else is there when currently the feely weelies of parents matter more than the children they spawn? If you can't handle a home visit and proving you can at least figure out how to change a nappy why are you having a child which is an overall MUCH bigger challenge... |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Bad User | Aug 29 2017, 08:53 AM Post #25 |
 
|
1. Still, it doesn't really prove anything. What makes you think it would stop those psychopaths to behave during the test to obtain the license then go home and mistreat their children with no one on their back? It doesn't really take too much cleverness to think of that, the system would be tricked as hell... 2. Just because you said 'it's not meant to be a punishment' it doesn't mean it isn't. What if I refuse the visit? Cuz my home, my rights. What would happen then, authorities would knock out my door and enter by force? Sounds like abuse to me. Even regular 'home checks' are generally enforced because there is suspicion of something illegal. Something that's regulated inside Law. Because authorities can't take action based on something that doesn't have any legal force. So how would you regulate 'having a baby without a license' as? Crime, contravention, civil delict? Too far-fetched... Some bad thingy outside law? For the same reason they could arrest someone for farting in public because they don't like the smell. Because the state would give discretionary power to authorities. So all this imposed 'home check' thing, more like 'suck it up and take it', sounds from a mile away like a true sanction. I'm not saying we shouldn't come up with methods to protect the children, but this one has a lot of errors. Edited by Bad User, Aug 29 2017, 12:41 PM.
|
| |
|
|
| Meowth | Aug 29 2017, 11:22 AM Post #26 |
|
=._.=
|
So you're going to raise taxes? Something will need to be produced to say you have a licence to breed, there is a cost in producing that, the hours for people to process applications and the additional hours to law enforcement to check homes, who is paying? Where is the money coming from? A parenting licence would cost more to produce and regulate than anything that currently happens in government, the scale alone should tell you that.
In the UK, there are approximately 7.2 million families with dependent children in 2016. Statistics on crimes against children are harder to find, but for those aged 10-15, it comes in around 20,000 in 2015, but this isn't even to say it is caused by the parent. The NSPCC statistics list children under 18 and not by family, of which there are 11 million approx, while over 50,000 needed protection from abuse, that is, around 0.5%. Worst case scenario, maybe 3% of 11 million need protection. Yeah, it's 0.5% too many children, or worse in unreported incidents, but it's a very small minority of families, most parents don't abuse their children. There is no benefit to having a licensing system to be a parent, since the vast majority of the time, there is no abuse or neglect. Let's take a look at other government programmes, the "Fitness for Work" tests, for those who claim disability benefits, very badly managed and often ends up costing the government more in tribunal fees than it would cost just to give the benefit. This is because fraud is a minority in this type of benefit, but a sledgehammer has been taken to try an solve the problem, in which it has ended up more costly than if you just used the laws already in place. So, let's try and apply current government logic to human breeding licenses, I will refer to them as HBLs. Two consenting adults have sex, with the intention of having a child, the woman is now pregnant, so they apply for a HBL. A team from the HBL Enforcement Agency is sent out to look at the family home, to see if it is suitable. They find that the plug sockets don't have covers and the farther smokes, worse still, they have a small cat full of energy. The HBL Enforcement Agency tells the parents that they need to cover the wall sockets (which you don't in the UK because of the safety features already in place, but protection services still tell you to anyway), the farther needs to stop smoking, even though smoking isn't against the law and doesn't make someone a bad parent. They are also told they need to get rid of their cat because the child might eat the cat food, play in the litter tray, cat hair might cause asthma or the cat might get too playful with the child and scratch them. The family goes along with covering wall sockets and the farther stops smoking, they don't want to have their child taken away after all. They have everything prepared, a cot, nappies, toys and so forth. They have made sure there are no corners exposed or anything like that. The baby arrives, they get settled in. What's this? A few months later, the HBL Enforcement Agency does a random home check, they see the old report saying the things the family needed to change, but they still have a cat! The enforcement officer questions the parents about this, the parents insist that everything has been fine and they have made sure the cat didn't do anything and the child never went near the food or litter, but the agent notices a small scratch on the child. The parents say it must have been from something else, but the agent has the child taken into care because they assume it was the cat, unless the parents can prove otherwise, after all, they were told to get rid of their cat. That is how I envision it going. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| + QueenTD | Aug 30 2017, 08:01 PM Post #27 |
My Dear Melancholy,
|
What if I refuse to take the test and have as many babies as I want? Will I get fined? Will I Go to Jail? Would you take MY kids away? What if I have a license and my baby daddy doesn't? Vice versa as well. https://www.livescience.com/5082-insane.html http://www.doctorshealthpress.com/brain-function-articles/does-everyone-have-a-mental-illness/ Everyone is crazy BTW. So them test ain't finna be 100% accurate. What if I'm a great parent but suck at test? What if my culture raises kids differently? Don't debate this since it'll get off topic. I believe in whopping your kids given the situation. What if the test will see me unsuited for parenting? What if I have a crime history but I'm tryna change my ways and the test prevents me from having kids? What EXACTLY ARE YOU TESTING? What will the questions consist of? |
 Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:55 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy