new premise
i got into a nice little debate the other night with my buddy and i wanted to run it by you guys, just as a premise...an idea
ok, by law, you must be 16 to get a license to drive, 18 to join the military or smoke, and 21 to purchase alcohol. these laws exist, IMO, because by those ages, most people are responsible enough to handle those responsibilities, right? this is a generalization, no specifics unless someone can offer legitimate studies confirming said arguements.
ok, my proposal is this: minimum age requirements imposed and/or licenses must be obtained to drive, smoke, drink, purchase a firearm and get married right? so why not a mandatory minimum age to have children?
this is my arguement:
with the proliferation of so many children born to young, unwed, and financially unprepared people, i propose a minimum age requirement of 25 and proof of financial stability in order to have children.
why: with respect to the others, by the age requirements imposed to attain those rights/priveleges one is assumed to have reached a certain maturity level proving that one can handle said responsibility. however, those mainly only affect the individual involved (please omit the accidental shootings, drunk driving, and other arguements of that nature at this time). the privilege to drive affects the licensed person, the age limit to purchase alcohol mainly affects the same and so on. however, having a child involves mainly another life. i think people should have to provide proof that they are 1)mature 2)financially stable and 3)competent enough to have children.
1)mature: enough to realixe that the world is no longer about you as an individual, but about the life you are about to bring into this world.
2)financially stable: have a job, keep it, prove you pay your bills and can handle the added expenses that a child will bring into your life. show that you can provide for the child on your own (no governmet assistance). a gov. program to assist should something happen (death of a parent, job loss, etc...) will help you get back on your feet, but it will be limited. assistance would last minimum of 3 months to 1 year. period. if you cannot find and hold a job for at least 12 consecutive months, your child would then enter into foster care where you would have an additional year to become stable again. (there are exceptions nothing is absolute...remember this is just a premise).
3)competency: those desiring to have a child, after meeting the age, maturity, and finiancial aspects must prove competency to raise a child. in this i mean that they are not habitual criminals, drug users, and understand the responsibility they are endeavoring to undertake. pre-parental training classes that provide information about raising a child, financial responsibilities regarding the child, individually, and family as a whole, child care and other subject must be completed.
after showing you are capable to handle the responsibility of caring for and raising a child, you are then granted a license to do so. yes i said license. the license would act mainly as a deterent for those that didn't meet the above requirements. but (specious arguement time) you have to have a license to drive, to get married, to own a business..why not have one to have children?
ok guys...examine, offer your thoughts, critique it as you guys do so well. remember though, it is just a premise. i have no conviction to argue for or against this. i really don't care, it was just a tought expounded upon during a conversation one night. but i will say this, all emotional arguements aside, just think of all the money that could be saved and used more positively if we could lessen the financial burden on the economy by eliminating the plethora of social aid programs to "assist" those who are currently unable or ,mainly, unwilling to help themselves. imaging the creation of so many new jobs because the work force would increase, wages would rise, productivity would increase because of demand, expantion of business, and others.
just a thought.
ok, by law, you must be 16 to get a license to drive, 18 to join the military or smoke, and 21 to purchase alcohol. these laws exist, IMO, because by those ages, most people are responsible enough to handle those responsibilities, right? this is a generalization, no specifics unless someone can offer legitimate studies confirming said arguements.
ok, my proposal is this: minimum age requirements imposed and/or licenses must be obtained to drive, smoke, drink, purchase a firearm and get married right? so why not a mandatory minimum age to have children?
this is my arguement:
with the proliferation of so many children born to young, unwed, and financially unprepared people, i propose a minimum age requirement of 25 and proof of financial stability in order to have children.
why: with respect to the others, by the age requirements imposed to attain those rights/priveleges one is assumed to have reached a certain maturity level proving that one can handle said responsibility. however, those mainly only affect the individual involved (please omit the accidental shootings, drunk driving, and other arguements of that nature at this time). the privilege to drive affects the licensed person, the age limit to purchase alcohol mainly affects the same and so on. however, having a child involves mainly another life. i think people should have to provide proof that they are 1)mature 2)financially stable and 3)competent enough to have children.
1)mature: enough to realixe that the world is no longer about you as an individual, but about the life you are about to bring into this world.
2)financially stable: have a job, keep it, prove you pay your bills and can handle the added expenses that a child will bring into your life. show that you can provide for the child on your own (no governmet assistance). a gov. program to assist should something happen (death of a parent, job loss, etc...) will help you get back on your feet, but it will be limited. assistance would last minimum of 3 months to 1 year. period. if you cannot find and hold a job for at least 12 consecutive months, your child would then enter into foster care where you would have an additional year to become stable again. (there are exceptions nothing is absolute...remember this is just a premise).
3)competency: those desiring to have a child, after meeting the age, maturity, and finiancial aspects must prove competency to raise a child. in this i mean that they are not habitual criminals, drug users, and understand the responsibility they are endeavoring to undertake. pre-parental training classes that provide information about raising a child, financial responsibilities regarding the child, individually, and family as a whole, child care and other subject must be completed.
after showing you are capable to handle the responsibility of caring for and raising a child, you are then granted a license to do so. yes i said license. the license would act mainly as a deterent for those that didn't meet the above requirements. but (specious arguement time) you have to have a license to drive, to get married, to own a business..why not have one to have children?
ok guys...examine, offer your thoughts, critique it as you guys do so well. remember though, it is just a premise. i have no conviction to argue for or against this. i really don't care, it was just a tought expounded upon during a conversation one night. but i will say this, all emotional arguements aside, just think of all the money that could be saved and used more positively if we could lessen the financial burden on the economy by eliminating the plethora of social aid programs to "assist" those who are currently unable or ,mainly, unwilling to help themselves. imaging the creation of so many new jobs because the work force would increase, wages would rise, productivity would increase because of demand, expantion of business, and others.
just a thought.
0
-
i couldnt agree more im 20 and dont want any children yet. im barely stable on my own.
the problem is how would you implement the plan. "love is free" except on street corners, then its $5 from a hooker[8]guess the STD roulette wheel.0 -
The first charge will be that you are limiting the right of reproduction (a pretty basic human right) to the monied elite. Besides how are you going to enforce that in all of the emerging nations? United Nations rule?
Essentially you are proposing eugenics based upon income. I think last time it was based upon "Aryan" descent.0 -
I'm 23 and have been financially responsible enough to handle a family for over 3 years.
Just something that you can't control.0 -
im sure there are those that would think this idea was great,
infact here are some of their flags and faces
0 -
China
I see slack beat me to it.0 -
your premise is a good THOUGHT.
Any thoughts on how the goverment would inforce it. they can't even enfore the laws reguarding illegal operation of a vehical..ie unlicenced drivers.
anyone know what the penalties are, for having children without state approval in CHINA???0 -
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
quote:Originally posted by Odawgp
your premise is a good THOUGHT.
Any thoughts on how the goverment would inforce it. they can't even enfore the laws reguarding illegal operation of a vehical..ie unlicenced drivers.
anyone know what the penalties are, for having children without state approval in CHINA???
I believe sterilization or possibly even death. [V]
I had heard that but didn't want to put my foot in my mouth.
back to topic,
to many bleeding hearts out there to ever let that happen sterization would be neck in neck with the abortion IMO0 -
Besides those already mentioned the Catholics preach against birth control so how do you convince the Millions of Catholics not to have babies until they are 25? 0 -
I believe China has now scrapped the one child program, because people routinely had more. 0 -
now, as my buddy profered and now cubs over there....
ok, you might be financially stable, but what about maturity and competency? you might make $10,000,000 per year, but do you still eat boogers or shoot heroin? have your been incarcerated for a felony or have a list of priors longer than a democrats answer to the question "do you like pie?" (it sounded funny in my head...you know, how democratic leaders answer a yes/no question with a 90 min rendition of the gettysburg address and the first 45 min of gone with the wind).
you may make more money than bill gates, but if you have a history of poor judgement and instability, why should you be allowed to have children if you can't control your self?0 -
No way to dodge the various religious beliefs - Catholics, Mormons, and many many others, not to mention the Constitutional racial ramifications.
Nice thinking exercise, though.
Doug0 -
virtually impossible to stop people from having kids.
quite frankly, if your dumb enough to have kids you cant afford, at an age when your going to ruin your life, you deserve the stress.
I betcha ill get flamed for this0 -
thanks doug. i just wanted to make everyone use those synaptic misfires in a different fashion.
jacob, in many ways i agree. there are those that do want a large family. but i still think that they just don't realize the disservice they do to their children by not being financially stable enough to provide them with the basics of life nor in the future as their children have their dreams of college and life goals when they realize that the reason they exist is because one night mom and dad either got really drunk or just horny. i just have a hard time believing that so many children are born as unplanned or unwanted. add that to the multitude that live off the social programs not as a stepping stone to self sufficiency but as their only means of support thus providing a solid example of "see son..you dont got to do nothin and the govermint still pays you not ta werk" mentality.0 -
So in a nut shell you are trying to say it was a mistake for Brittney Spears to have babies?[:o)] 0 -
My dad was 53 and mom was 34 when they had me. 60 and 40 when they had my sis. Is that old enough? 0 -
Aramisvi,.......good thought process!
Problem,........makes too much sense.
I believe EXACTLY like you do, but it is a dream that will never happen.
Forget about the Hitler crap, and all that,won't even go there, as that was a totally different thing.
I don't care if a 16 year old has 16 children, throughout their lifespan.
Here is the kicker,........I don't wish to pay for them, nor to constantly hear about the struggles that the family has to go through to raise them.
You breed 'em,......you raise, AND pay for them![;)]0 -
We did it with 6.
Doug0 -
With all those stipulations .....My guess is there would never be another child born in the US and we would have to depend on the mexicans to fill future job openings. 0 -
"Allowing" people to have children. Brilliant.
And what would be the penalty for unlicensed reproduction? A fine? Taking the child away?
The government can't even stop people from drinking whiskey or huffing paint - the best they can manage for "control" is to round up anyone with an unapproved hobby and throw 'em in cages with serial rapists to get sold as slaves and murdered. Which penalty has done exactly nothing to impact the prevalence of any of these things. How are you going to effectively legislate something as basic to humanity as humpin'?0 -
[:o)]Would this mean no $5,000.00 per child?[:o)] 0 -
The rednecks, Catholics and minorities won't go for it![:D] 0 -
every woman I have met has volentarily decided not to mate with me, no law required. 0 -
[;)] 0 -
marc...i agree. with a plan like this, it would be designed to help people make a better life for themselves and their children by stipulating they have and maintain a job. the social programs now in place would be defunct,dismantled and fused into one cohesive program with very strict guidelines as outlined above. the existance of the program is for emergency relief and NOT as a means of sole support as it is now. after a case is reviewed, should a family need assistance, they would be granted funds on a 3,6,12 month basis. after 12 months, re-evaluate the case and if the problem has not been rectified, children are then placed in foster care for a period of time to allow the parents to "get back on their feet" as it were.
reloader, a program such as this could also stem the incoming tide of illegal immegrants in that the programs they now use as they means of income would disappear. they say they come for the jobs, but they really come for free (at tax payers expense) food, health care, welfare checks and the like. with these programs now defunct and absorbed into the new more rigid and strict program, they couldn't qualify for all the free benefits they plunder now. and since this program would only be utilized for citizens and legal (you have to show real, traceable documentation of status) immegrants, they wouldn't come knowing there was nothing here for them but hard work.
the "anchor baby" situation should almost completely disappear.
this country is lazy and has been slipping into a "gimme gimme you owe me this just cuz i exist" mentality that all too many people are almost afraid of an honest hard days work. to work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor has almost no meaning any more. people would rather their neighbor work hard and then steal from them while their neighbor can't figure out where his hard earned money has gone.
i would also hesitantly predict that adoption rates would rise as those people who had a child knowing that they couldn't afford them would give them up for adoption to someone who could but was unable to have children of their own. down side to that would be "breeding farms" where women would be paid to have kids to offer up for adoption.0 -
Pipe dream.
Doug0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
25 comments