Should parents have to have a license to have children

[Access Denied]

Even with contraceptives, a lot of unwanted pregnancies are occurring and mostly with people who would be irresponsible parents. As my mother councils homeless kids who are the product of drug abusers, i wonder if a license would be the best thing. Maybe have an interview with some government agency.

China is an example where the government is directly related to the production of children with the one child policy maybe this intervention from the government is what is needed to make responsible parents.

what are your thoughts?

Should their be a license for having children?

[MR.AHM]

First I don't like the phrase "Production of children"

There should be no other outside parties other than the parents when having children or not... But in China they are excused because the population is growing rapidly and that is ethical for some reason I think:

1- First poor families should not have babies when they can't afford to feed them well. It is like bringing another soul into the earth and live poorly... one or two is not a problem.. But having lots of baby and you can't afford for them it is not good at all... They should use protection like bills or condoms if they want to continue having a sexual life.. Or the China government provide a free surgery for women so they don't get babies.

2- China population exceeds 1 billion... And may reach 1.5 billion in no time. Therefore if the population increase the country will need to get more food to feed the population and that is definitely not easy at all...

3- Land, now land is becoming scarce day after day... Where would they let the children live. Unless they build houses 50-100 floors - a bit exaggerating, but you get the point- and that would be really hard and need a lot of money, and takes a long time + what if a disaster falls like a tornado or earthquake..

And I believe the license won't make them more responsible because most people now want two kids, 3 kids maximum. Few who wants more... And responsibility is not just the parents, the kids themselves... I believe who tries drug for the sake of fun is a fool and doesn't respect life. And he/her worthless...

To stop pregnancies they should fine the people who get children before marriage... And if the wife or husband are a drug addict.. They should be checked before marriage and do something about like help her get out it, or go to jail of because of the use of drugs and don't get marriage

[CkyBlue]

I have a more extreme view than you. I am a Malthusian, and I believe that the increase of the world population will pose an enormous problem in the future. Even if there are licenses to have children, people will still abuse, and others will ignore.

My extremist views are due to my opinion that rules without the death sentence, extreme punishment, or great payment for doing wrong, the attitude towards a habit of committing, say a crime, will not change. (that was an awkward sentence)However, without punishment, people will lack the incentive to change what is bad for the world. It is the mindset of punishment that will ultimately decide whether or not a person is to make a decision. This is why, I am a supporter of the death sentence; without research, I can guarantee that the crime rate death sentence countries to be several notches lower than those that don't have it.

Going back to my point, I agree that there should be some type of restriction limit the children we can have. As the world population is increasing without limitation (except China) world consumption will continue to increase if not exponentially, very rapidly, leading to economic turmoil. Our resources will run out without a doubt, as we are using them faster than we are remaking them. Without resources, the human race will eventually collapse. This is why I think the increasing of the world population is such a huge problem, and I do think that governments should take extreme measures to control it, perhaps with a heavy fine, or some other punishment that will strike the people as "don't do it".

[Emmi]

I don't think you can really enforce a licensing requirement on people in order to have children. It's downright impossible to get every man and woman who are able to reproduce to get a license. And then you have the situations where children are conceived by couples out of wedlock (it only takes one time). Once a girl starts her menstrual cycle she can get pregnant, and they can start as early as age 9 or 10 (believe me ). Guys can start to get a girl pregnant at around that age too. So a girl who wants to have a baby at age 13 or 14 with her boyfriend of around the same age can get pregnant. Does this mean we need to require them to get a license? They're just as likely to make a baby as a pair of twenty or thirty-year-old adults. If people want to make a baby, they will find a way.

But I really wish people would be more responsible in planning children. If you're in a financial hardship or already having trouble supporting and raising any children you have now, it's absolutely stupid to bring another child into the world. I remember watching an episode of The Ellen DeGeneres Show with my mom, and there was a couple on there (mid twenties or so) who were living at home with the wife's parents since their house went into foreclosure, had $40,000 (USD) in student loans between the two of them, and credit card debt with two young children. And on top of all that, the wife was pregnant again. My mom and I just wanted to slap her and her husband for adding ANOTHER child to the mix when she really didn't have any means to support the two they already had. And I also (although I hate to admit it) love watching the Maury Povich Show (for those who don't know, it's a talkshow and it's most common episodes are either a mother trying to find who the father of her child(ren) are by testing one or more men or trying to find out if their spouse is cheating on them). But what makes me mad is seeing all of these people at age 18 or 19 and in some cases even much younger having two or three kids already and not knowing who their fathers are and having no means to support their kid. It makes me mad. Having a child is a wonderful thing, but really, wait until you're financially stable to have kids. Kids are expensive.

So in short the idea of having a license to have children is a nice one, but unfeasible.

[TurtleR]

I disagree with the idea of having a licence.

Firstly, because its unrealistic. How is the government supposed to regulate something like that? It would require a lot of time and resources in order to actually track it, let alone enforce it.

Secondly, when you place people under extreme restrictions, they try to get out of them. In a hypothetical situation, if this licencing system were actually in place, what would a couple that accidentally have a child do? It's not likely that they would turn themselves in. It's more likely that they would try and get rid of the child, which ends up killing the child and could also put the woman at risk if they choose to kill the child before birth.

Thirdly, I agree with the above point made by emyski that its hard to figure out WHO would require a licence. would it be 13-14 year olds in a relationship that are capable of reproducing? Would the licence be intended for only couples, or would anybody capable of reproducing have to get it?

Fourthly, what would be the consequences of having a child without a licence? Would it be a fine? Would it be a vasectomy for the man and tubal ligation for the woman? Would it be an abortion if the child hasn't yet been born? Would it be, in extreme cases, castration, or even the death penalty (it's possible in a country with an extreme government)?

Lastly, how would this work on an international scale? Sure, in places like Canada and Germany, having children isnt a problem. I mean, the populations are relatively under control, and there are even countries that need a bigger population. However, places like China and India, with their massive populations, they do certainly require some sort of regulation, but a licence isnt the way to go. China's one child policy isnt bad, but how would you enforce it in the places that are poorer? I remember seeing a documentary once about a country in Africa (forgot which one) but they mentioned that the families try to have a LOT of children, because the children could help out with the labour, and a lot of them die because of the conditions. Would you enforce a licence law in that country?

I agree that the world population is going out of control. We are quickly running out of resources. I do think there should be some sort of regulation in populous countries, such as China's one child policy. However, I can't support a system in which people require a licence in order to have children, or otherwise face extreme punishment. Reproduction is a natural process, not a job interview and a privilege.

[jess1ca]

Fourthly, what would be the consequences of having a child without a licence? Would it be a fine? Would it be a vasectomy for the man and tubal ligation for the woman? Would it be an abortion if the child hasn't yet been born? Would it be, in extreme cases, castration, or even the death penalty (it's possible in a country with an extreme government)?

^ This. Sounds a little barbaric, doesn't it?

In fact, I don't agree with population control at all. With any form of population control, we arrive at the same consequences you stated above. Look at China for example. Female foeticide & infanticide, forced abortions and IUDs, etc...

I agree we have limited resources, but "overpopulation" is not destroying the planet. "We" are. Say we reduce/control the population of those in populous countries "overcrowding our planet and increasing our poverty rates". We would still probably complain about not having enough resources. Isn't it true that 20% of the world use 80% of the world's resources ...?

My point is, there are better ways to fix our problems. Honestly, sometimes the term overpopulation sounds like an excuse to keep spending and wasting resources... after all, the lack of resources is due to those people in overpopulated countries, not us. But the average African (in Africa, there's a population growth) uses much less than the average American.

Also, overall, the world population is increasing. But if we look at many countries (European ones), their population is going down and aging. I'm not an economics expert, not taking Economics like you are , but I can't understand how that could be good for the economy in the future when there aren't enough people in the workforce to support the aging population.

Edited August 31, 2011 by SmilingAtLife:)

[TurtleR]

Fourthly, what would be the consequences of having a child without a licence? Would it be a fine? Would it be a vasectomy for the man and tubal ligation for the woman? Would it be an abortion if the child hasn't yet been born? Would it be, in extreme cases, castration, or even the death penalty (it's possible in a country with an extreme government)?

^ This. Sounds a little barbaric, doesn't it?

In fact, I don't agree with population control at all. With any form of population control, we arrive at the same consequences you stated above. Look at China for example. Female foeticide & infanticide, forced abortions and IUDs, etc...

I agree we have limited resources, but "overpopulation" is not destroying the planet. "We" are. Say we reduce/control the population of those in populous countries "overcrowding our planet and increasing our poverty rates". We would still probably complain about not having enough resources. Isn't it true that 20% of the world use 80% of the world's resources ...?

My point is, there are better ways to fix our problems. Honestly, sometimes the term overpopulation sounds like an excuse to keep spending and wasting resources... after all, the lack of resources is due to those people in overpopulated countries, not us. But the average African (in Africa, there's a population growth) uses much less than the average American.

Also, overall, the world population is increasing. But if we look at many countries (European ones), their population is going down and aging. I'm not an economics expert, not taking Economics like you are , but I can't understand how that could be good for the economy in the future when there aren't enough people in the workforce to support the aging population.

I supposed you have a point about population control at all, I forgot about the consequences of China's one child policy.

However I'd have to disagree with overpopulation not destroying the planet. I mean, I live in Canada so I understand what you mean by "20% of the world use 80% of the world's resources" but that doesnt mean that we should just leave the populous countries to their own devices and focus on solely the countries that use the most. It's true that the developed countries tend to use more resources, and waste them as well. However, I prefer to be an optimist. In these countries, I'm confident that research is significantly advancing our options in terms of renewable energy, better biodegradeable products, more efficient technology, etc. I personally used to waste a lot as well, but over the course of the past 2 years I've been trying to reduce my carbon footprint. I'm hoping that in developed countries, in the long term, will change as I'm seeing changes today.

But, as I mentioned before, African families may have many children in order to simply have more of a labour force. Its true that they use less resources, but do many of them honestly look to be in good health? I'd rather have a healthy, small population than a big population that is in dire need of resources that many developed nations attempt to provide. Less resources usage =/= healthy country.

And lastly, as I mentioned before some countries actually DO need an increase in population. However, I would rather they increase options of immigration instead of wait 20 years for a population boom to start working.\

Sorry, I feel like I'm getting a bit off topic, but to summarize, I guess that there are many things we CAN do, but a licence is definitely not one of them.

[Sandwich]

This is why, I am a supporter of the death sentence; without research, I can guarantee that the crime rate death sentence countries to be several notches lower than those that don't have it.

Perhaps surprisingly, this is in fact false. The death sentence as a deterrent is not particularly effective. If you have a country with many of the factors which pressurise people to involve themselves in a life of crime - poverty, drugs, gangs etc. - such as in many of the bigger cities of the USA, then those are the things which drive the crime rate. A society with low crime is a society with a low equality gap, low poverty and plenty of state provision - the fact that the punishment for committing a crime may be potentially very harsh has a relatively tiny impact in terms of dissuading people from breaking the law in that way.

Not to mention, in my opinion the sheer lack of efficacy combined with the barbarism of the state ever being allowed to kill its citizens makes the idea of a death sentence quite revolting.

[Access Denied]

i think a licence is needed.

millions of children are abused world wide from parents that are uneducated in how to treat a child or just plainly awful. A licence would mean that people are taught how a child should be treated and weavle out the people who are not fit to parent.

A parental license system will be much like adoption. Why should people that have functioning reproductive organs be any less scrutinised than someone who doesn’t? It will make people think twice and realise,

Having children is not a right. It is a privilege.

[TurtleR]

i think a licence is needed.

millions of children are abused world wide from parents that are uneducated in how to treat a child or just plainly awful. A licence would mean that people are taught how a child should be treated and weavle out the people who are not fit to parent.

A parental license system will be much like adoption. Why should people that have functioning reproductive organs be any less scrutinised than someone who doesn't? It will make people think twice and realise,

Having children is not a right. It is a privilege.

I don't think a licence would help that. You can't judge if someone is fit to parent by an interview, just as how you can't tell if a child is being abused by an interview.

Also, I don't see how it's like adoption. Firstly, adoption is not restricted to only those with functioning reproductive organs. Many people, even if they are capable of conceiving a child, adopt a child anyways. Also, adoptions are more heavily scrutinized because of the fact that you are dealing with children that are already born. Children that have already been orphaned, or abandoned. The caregivers of these children need to be sure that they go into a good home. However, with the licence system, its different. That's basically telling them that a couple can or can't produce a child due to government restrictions. Reproduction is natural, its not something that should be a "privilege".

[Access Denied]

the process is like adoption.

yes but with any licence you can reapply after a time period.

as the model for the debate im helping these kids with :

• Who: This model targets anybody who has the ability or desire to have children.

• What: All potential parents will partake in compulsory school lessons in PDHPE in Years 9 and 10 and in RE year 12. These lessons will educate teens on children, the responsibilities posed by parenthood and the complications of your actions on your children, such as drug and alcohol intake.

All people wanting to later have a family will have to self-apply (like for a drivers license) to be interviewed and assessed for a parenting license. This process will include assessing if they are financially stable to look after a child, anger management and other such testing. Testing will be not to assess if someone will be a good parent but if someone will be a bad parent as this is much easier to do than vise versa. If all of the criterion are passed then persons, whether straight, homosexual or single will be given a license and put into a system, so that licenses cannot be faked. If it is denied they may reapply after 2 weeks.

If a baby is conceived without the parents having a licence they will be immediately trialled and if denied the licence will have until the end of the pregnancy to prove their abilities, or their child will be put up for adoption to.

Everyone pregnant, will be asked for their parenting license when they go for any checkups and the eventual birth.

Anyone that violates the system will have their child immediately put into foster care and will go to court facing potential jail time or community service.

[TurtleR]

the process is like adoption.

yes but with any licence you can reapply after a time period.

as the model for the debate im helping these kids with :

• Who: This model targets anybody who has the ability or desire to have children.

• What: All potential parents will partake in compulsory school lessons in PDHPE in Years 9 and 10 and in RE year 12. These lessons will educate teens on children, the responsibilities posed by parenthood and the complications of your actions on your children, such as drug and alcohol intake.

All people wanting to later have a family will have to self-apply (like for a drivers license) to be interviewed and assessed for a parenting license. This process will include assessing if they are financially stable to look after a child, anger management and other such testing. Testing will be not to assess if someone will be a good parent but if someone will be a bad parent as this is much easier to do than vise versa. If all of the criterion are passed then persons, whether straight, homosexual or single will be given a license and put into a system, so that licenses cannot be faked. If it is denied they may reapply after 2 weeks.

If a baby is conceived without the parents having a licence they will be immediately trialled and if denied the licence will have until the end of the pregnancy to prove their abilities, or their child will be put up for adoption to.

Everyone pregnant, will be asked for their parenting license when they go for any checkups and the eventual birth.

Anyone that violates the system will have their child immediately put into foster care and will go to court facing potential jail time or community service.

This system is just filled with holes.

In years 9 and 10 and 12, what if people arent sure if they want to be potential parents? Would they have to take the courses later in life?

Do you think that this "education" would actually help at all? Look at just simply health class in year 9. Health class taught students that abstinence was key, but how many people actually listen? And do you honestly think that people are going to pay attention through boring classes that they don't want to take? Furthermore, doesn't this take up valuable time during the school year that the students could be using to advance their academic lives and prepare for their future? You're basically asking to get rid of 3 courses.

Why does financial stability have to do with having children? True, it helps, a lot. However there are plenty of children that grow up without financial stability, yet became successes later in life. My dad grew up impoverished in India, and now guess what? He's getting ready to send me off to University, and paying for my entire tuition. According to your licencing system however, my grandfather shouldnt have been allowed to have him.

Furthermore, there have been cases where kids have grown up in situations when parents have had anger management issues. However, anger management can change, and also certain parents that have anger management issues don't have issues with their own child; they may only get angry at say, random people or interviewers, but not their child. Furthermore, there are people in the world who don't appear to have anger management issues, yet still abuse their children.

You're basing a lot of this "testing" on issues that all have exceptions in which children have been raised well.

Also, if they are homosexual, how would they conceive a child? This would point towards adoption (usually, if you cut out the sperm donor/surrogate mother route, which requires lots of money) and adoption already has its own selection process. Not to mention that if a person is single and has a licence, whats to say that they don't change as they get into a relationship? Relationships change people, not necessarily making them a better parent. Also, what would you define as a "couple"? Someone that's only married? Someone in a long term relationship?

And you say that if parents conceive without a licence, there's a possibility of the child being put up for adoption. Do you realize how much this is going to affect the adoption centers? They're going to be overloaded. You can't forcibly prevent accidental pregnancies, can you? Are you going to force them to have an abortion, which is just as much a violation of their rights as this entire licencing system?

And also, what about women that got raped and became pregnant, or women that passed out at a party and got pregnant by some guy? What if a woman got pregnant because the condom broke? How are you going to treat cases like that? Are you honestly going to put a woman on trial because she got raped? And if not, then what are you going to do about the ethical grey areas that pop up by not putting that woman on trial while putting women in lesser situations on trial? Also, how to you plan to track down the men in these cases?

Lastly, you want the government to waste their time and resources by enforcing a system that is just full of holes? The money used to fund this could easily go to a better cause.

[Access Denied]

(in australia we are not taught abstinence we are taught safe sex.... and ppl listen)

ppl will have to sit classes regardless if they want tobe parents or not but wont have to take the licence assessments , all would go into 'health' class as one topic, and even if they dont listen. ppl usually pick up one thing from it and thats better than nothing. and maybe the one person who listens will be the one person who may have abused their child.

Im not saying that you need X amount im saying the bare minimum enough to get them food , shelter and water.

You say that only some ppl get angry, some abuse etc.

those some are the ones who should get outed and even if they dont pass they can work on their issues and retake. 'capable' ppl should get through in a breeze. we can use existing tests that claim to isolate relevant predictive characteristics -- whether a person is violence-prone, easily frustrated, or unduly self-centered. In fact, researchers at Nashville General Hospital have developed a brief interview questionnaire which seems to have significant predictive value. Based on their data, the researchers identified 20 percent of the interviewees as a"risk group"--those having great potential for serious problems. After one year they found "the incidence of major break down in parent-child interaction in the risk group was approximately four to five times as great as in the low risk group."(9) We also know that parents who maltreat children often have certain identifiable experiences, for example, most of them were themselves maltreated as children. Consequently, if we combined our information about these parents with certain psychological test results, we would probably be able to predict with reasonable accuracy which people will maltreat their children.

These unintentional mistakes that you talk of, that a license would clearly harm innocent individuals. Why would their be any more with a parenting license than with other regulatory activities. No matter how reliable our proceedings are, there will always be mistakes. We may license a physician who, through incompetence, would cause the death of a patient; or we may mistakenly deny a physician's license to some one who would be competent. But the fact that mistakes are made does not and should not lead us to abandon attempts to determine competence. The harm done in these cases could be far worse than the harm of mistakenly denying a person a parenting license. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to believe that more mistakes will be made here than elsewhere.

A couple- two people wanting children... Homosexuals could still have children through applying the said ways. Their will be no discrimination in this case and i guess you could say that surrogate mothers are allowed but must get the licence so that we know they will have a healthy pregnancy.

People that change in relationships- sure with anything ther will be kinks in the system but is that reason to not help the ones we can save, their will still e docs and other child services etc.

You say this is all a violation of rights? Both slander and human sacrifice are prohibited by law; both could result from the unrestricted exercise of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Thus, even if people have these rights, they may sometimes be limited in order to protect innocent people.

At the end of the day the GOVERNMENT pays for your healthcare if you've been knocked unconscious by the abuser, pays for your education and pays for your needs, they should have a say in how the future population is being raised.

No one said anything about abortion just adoption. and People will hopefully be educated enough about the system that they will think twice.

No offence but many things governments do are full of holes doesnt mean we shouldnt do them, if a girl is raped in a lot of cases she will abort if she chooses not to most cases will adopt. And if not she takes the parenting licence. really that hard to comprehend?

how do we catch the bad guys that get away with rape today? why would this system change that approach?

[CkyBlue]

This is why, I am a supporter of the death sentence; without research, I can guarantee that the crime rate death sentence countries to be several notches lower than those that don't have it.

Perhaps surprisingly, this is in fact false. The death sentence as a deterrent is not particularly effective. If you have a country with many of the factors which pressurise people to involve themselves in a life of crime - poverty, drugs, gangs etc. - such as in many of the bigger cities of the USA, then those are the things which drive the crime rate. A society with low crime is a society with a low equality gap, low poverty and plenty of state provision - the fact that the punishment for committing a crime may be potentially very harsh has a relatively tiny impact in terms of dissuading people from breaking the law in that way.

Not to mention, in my opinion the sheer lack of efficacy combined with the barbarism of the state ever being allowed to kill its citizens makes the idea of a death sentence quite revolting.

The death sentence is used accordingly to crimes that are serious, abusing drugs or stealing will not get you the death sentence. The death sentence is used in accordance to intentional murder. Anyway, my point was that there needs to be punishment in order for people to who commit crimes accordingly. Punishment has a tiny impact? There are people that fly over to different countries, knowing they will only go to jail if they commit a certain crime, whereas in their own country they'd have it much worse. Why is it fair that people who commit crimes and murder others intention, only go to jail?

[kim luffy]

I don't think they should have a license. The parents should know what they're getting themselves into when having sex and should be aware of the consequences. It's not the baby's fault that they happened to have sex and were not being safe enough since there's more them one way of avoiding pregnancies. There can be a control but not limit it to one child like China does. Maybe a maximum of 5 or 6? because some people do want to have babies but societies see it as abnormal and what not. All in all, there shouldn't be a license when one wants to have a baby, neither should they abort the baby because that is just inhuman. I' m really against abortion and well the mother should just have the baby and give it up for adoption instead of killing an innocent life. There should be a punishment for people who abort babies because that's murder of a life that can't even defend itself.

Edited August 31, 2011 by kim luffy

[Sandwich]

The death sentence is used accordingly to crimes that are serious, abusing drugs or stealing will not get you the death sentence. The death sentence is used in accordance to intentional murder. Anyway, my point was that there needs to be punishment in order for people to who commit crimes accordingly. Punishment has a tiny impact? There are people that fly over to different countries, knowing they will only go to jail if they commit a certain crime, whereas in their own country they'd have it much worse. Why is it fair that people who commit crimes and murder others intention, only go to jail?

This is a confusing and somewhat vague reply. Punishment does indeed have a tiny impact in terms of the death sentence versus life imprisonment. People don't fly from a country with the death sentence to somewhere else with life imprisonment in order to commit a murder there. Generally the person you want to murder doesn't agree to hop on the plane with you for that convenience - and plus you are only going to then be extradited back to your own country even if you fled punishment at home. They don't lock you up in the country you flee to. Very few places in the world don't have extradition laws.

People who flee the death sentence in their own country also flee life imprisonment in their own country. It's not like the death sentence would make them run but life in jail would make them stay put For many people, especially young people, the whole of the rest of their lives spent in prison is a much greater punishment than being killed - and it also makes them take responsibility for what they have done without bloodying the hands of the state.

There's also the useful side effect that should they be found innocent at a later date due to incorrect evidence (as sometimes does happen), they're still around to be let out rather than an innocent being murdered in cold blood by the state.

My point is that capital punishment is no more effective than life imprisonment as a deterrent. So when you say "Punishment has a tiny impact?" incredulously then I agree with you - punishment DOES have a big impact. But the form of punishment in terms of being murdered rather than spending your life in prison has no effect.

[jess1ca]

Sorry, I feel like I'm getting a bit off topic, but to summarize, I guess that there are many things we CAN do, but a licence is definitely not one of them.

Yeah, I didn't mean to get off topic, I just felt like the 2 were linked (a license for having children could be used for population control). I was reading an autobiography of a Chinese woman and when she was pregnant, the nurse's response was basically "This isn't the right time for you to be pregnant right now, it isn't a part of the "plan", get pregnant some other time when we tell you you can".

[CkyBlue]

The death sentence is used accordingly to crimes that are serious, abusing drugs or stealing will not get you the death sentence. The death sentence is used in accordance to intentional murder. Anyway, my point was that there needs to be punishment in order for people to who commit crimes accordingly. Punishment has a tiny impact? There are people that fly over to different countries, knowing they will only go to jail if they commit a certain crime, whereas in their own country they'd have it much worse. Why is it fair that people who commit crimes and murder others intention, only go to jail?

This is a confusing and somewhat vague reply. Punishment does indeed have a tiny impact in terms of the death sentence versus life imprisonment. People don't fly from a country with the death sentence to somewhere else with life imprisonment in order to commit a murder there. Generally the person you want to murder doesn't agree to hop on the plane with you for that convenience - and plus you are only going to then be extradited back to your own country even if you fled punishment at home. They don't lock you up in the country you flee to. Very few places in the world don't have extradition laws.

People who flee the death sentence in their own country also flee life imprisonment in their own country. It's not like the death sentence would make them run but life in jail would make them stay put For many people, especially young people, the whole of the rest of their lives spent in prison is a much greater punishment than being killed - and it also makes them take responsibility for what they have done without bloodying the hands of the state.

There's also the useful side effect that should they be found innocent at a later date due to incorrect evidence (as sometimes does happen), they're still around to be let out rather than an innocent being murdered in cold blood by the state.

My point is that capital punishment is no more effective than life imprisonment as a deterrent. So when you say "Punishment has a tiny impact?" incredulously then I agree with you - punishment DOES have a big impact. But the form of punishment in terms of being murdered rather than spending your life in prison has no effect.

Well sorry about that. I didn't have much library time so I was kind of rushing to fit stuff in, but I'm at home now so now I have time to put together a better argument. I'm glad we came to some common ground as that there should be some kind of punishment.

So I was wrong about the "guaranteeing the crime rate is lower..." part. Oops >__<

But nevertheless I am still a supporter of capital punishment, and I mean that in itself and with all its good intentions. It's kind of like communism. Their intentions are moral. The death sentence was created to invoke a sense of fairness. Whether or not there is a corrupt justice system. I guess I meant it in an idealistic sense. But when practised, things go wrong like you mentioned above.

[Philovitist]

Even with contraceptives, a lot of unwanted pregnancies are occurring and mostly with people who would be irresponsible parents. As my mother councils homeless kids who are the product of drug abusers, i wonder if a license would be the best thing. Maybe have an interview with some government agency.

China is an example where the government is directly related to the production of children with the one child policy maybe this intervention from the government is what is needed to make responsible parents.

what are your thoughts?

Should their be a license for having children?

China's regulation of reproduction is proving to contribute to social instability as the gap between female births and male births widens.

Besides...don't you know that the regulation of sexual behavior in history has usually been mostly ineffective?

[Access Denied]

The parental license would not be to prevent overpopulation but would aim to prevent the amount of parents that are unfit to raise children. Their would be no means of abortion if someone is deemed not suitable for a license, this would merely be an extension of abortion. And hopefully limit the amount of children in abusive families.

Having children is a privilege not a right.