S.C. official: Sterilize bad parents

[Jenn! 918]

And so what would be the penalty for having a baby without a license, a fine, imprisonment?

You are fined and given a grace period to apply for a license. If you fail to obtain a

license within the required period, Child Protective Services will conduct a family

assessment, and if the family doesn't meet the state's requirements, place the child

in the department's custody (foster care).

No offense, but that sounds like a horrible, horrible idea to me!

Why do you think it's a bad idea?

For one thing, I would not trust the DSS with anything like this. Look at the state of our foster care program now.

[mawilson 2,133]

For one thing, I would not trust the DSS with anything like this. Look at the state of our foster care program now.

You're objecting to the implementation of the idea (DSS), not the idea itself.

[Jenn! 918]

For one thing, I would not trust the DSS with anything like this. Look at the state of our foster care program now.

You're objecting to the implementation of the idea (DSS), not the idea itself.

Well, without the possibility of proper implementation, an idea falls flat, no?

But anyway, that's not my only objection. To me, there's just something very wrong about taking away someone's right (yes right, not privilege) to bear children based on their income. You've already stated that you believe having children is a privilege, so I can't see how we'd agree.

[mawilson 2,133]

But anyway, that's not my only objection. To me, there's just something very wrong about taking away someone's right (yes right, not privilege) to bear children based on their income. You've already stated that you believe having children is a privilege, so I can't see how we'd agree.

You assume that child licenses would automatically disqualify a lot of people who

would otherwise be good parents. I disagree. How many people do you know

who wanted to drive and couldn't get a driver's licence? Not many, I bet.

If someone really wanted a child, they could get their act together and qualify

for a child license. The only people that would never qualify are drug addicts,

child abusers and HIV-infected persons who we all agree should not be allowed

to have children anyway.

Having children seems like an inalienable right -- but is it really? We're so obsessed

with ourselves that we operate as if we lived in a vacuum, ignoring the legitimate

concerns of others.

[Jenn! 918]

But anyway, that's not my only objection. To me, there's just something very wrong about taking away someone's right (yes right, not privilege) to bear children based on their income. You've already stated that you believe having children is a privilege, so I can't see how we'd agree.

You assume that child licenses would automatically disqualify a lot of people who

would otherwise be good parents. I disagree. How many people do you know

who wanted to drive and couldn't get a driver's licence? Not many, I bet.

If someone really wanted a child, they could get their act together and qualify

for a child license. The only people that would never qualify are drug addicts,

child abusers and HIV-infected persons who we all agree should not be allowed

to have children anyway.

Having children seems like an inalienable right -- but is it really? We're so obsessed

with ourselves that we operate as if we lived in a vacuum, ignoring the legitimate

concerns of others.

Since you haven't laid out any specifics, let's take current family immigration guidelines as an example. There are quite a few people using cosponsors (ie., they are below the poverty level), these people would not be able to get a license to have children. What about all those "drug addicts" who admitted to smoking marijuana at some point in their lives and now have to file waivers and be subject to bans and whatnot? Nope, no license for them either....

I realize that I am speaking again about implementation, but I don't think you can really separate the idea from its implementation when determining whether it's viable.

[mawilson 2,133]

Since you haven't laid out any specifics, let's take current family immigration guidelines as an example. There are quite a few people using cosponsors (ie., they are below the poverty level), these people would not be able to get a license to have children. What about all those "drug addicts" who admitted to smoking marijuana at some point in their lives and now have to file waivers and be subject to bans and whatnot? Nope, no license for them either....

Using a co-sponsor sounds like a good way to get around the poverty guideline rule.

If the only obstacle to their getting a license is money, by all means let them find a

co-sponsor. Really, our main concern is the well-being of the child; it doesn't matter

who pays child support as long as someone does.

People who admitted to smoking marijuana at some point in their lives and now need

waivers of sorts are not drug addicts, they are idiots who talk too much.

You'll know a real drug addict when you see him/her.

[pedroh 21]

But anyway, that's not my only objection. To me, there's just something very wrong about taking away someone's right (yes right, not privilege) to bear children based on their income. You've already stated that you believe having children is a privilege, so I can't see how we'd agree.

You assume that child licenses would automatically disqualify a lot of people who

would otherwise be good parents. I disagree. How many people do you know

who wanted to drive and couldn't get a driver's licence? Not many, I bet.

If someone really wanted a child, they could get their act together and qualify

for a child license. The only people that would never qualify are drug addicts,

child abusers and HIV-infected persons who we all agree should not be allowed

to have children anyway.

Having children seems like an inalienable right -- but is it really? We're so obsessed

with ourselves that we operate as if we lived in a vacuum, ignoring the legitimate

concerns of others.

Since you haven't laid out any specifics, let's take current family immigration guidelines as an example. There are quite a few people using cosponsors (ie., they are below the poverty level), these people would not be able to get a license to have children. What about all those "drug addicts" who admitted to smoking marijuana at some point in their lives and now have to file waivers and be subject to bans and whatnot? Nope, no license for them either....

I realize that I am speaking again about implementation, but I don't think you can really separate the idea from its implementation when determining whether it's viable.

cmon u know a random reefer user is not the same as a crack #######.. there's no way u can compare a person who smokes a joint every now and then, with an addict who doesnt have a job and steals and does stupid ####### like that to get their crack..

although i dont agree with the AIDS thing, there's a procedure in which u can separate the egg from an HIV mother and inseminate it withouth passing hiv to the kid.. but to drug abusers, hell yeah, why would you give a right to an ahole that willprobly kill his kid, or accidentally starve him to death?

[Jenn! 918]

Since you haven't laid out any specifics, let's take current family immigration guidelines as an example. There are quite a few people using cosponsors (ie., they are below the poverty level), these people would not be able to get a license to have children. What about all those "drug addicts" who admitted to smoking marijuana at some point in their lives and now have to file waivers and be subject to bans and whatnot? Nope, no license for them either....

I realize that I am speaking again about implementation, but I don't think you can really separate the idea from its implementation when determining whether it's viable.

cmon u know a random reefer user is not the same as a crack #######.. there's no way u can compare a person who smokes a joint every now and then, with an addict who doesnt have a job and steals and does stupid ####### like that to get their crack..

Yes, I know that and you know that. My point is that IMO the government tends to overdo things, so why would they not in this case?

Since you haven't laid out any specifics, let's take current family immigration guidelines as an example. There are quite a few people using cosponsors (ie., they are below the poverty level), these people would not be able to get a license to have children. What about all those "drug addicts" who admitted to smoking marijuana at some point in their lives and now have to file waivers and be subject to bans and whatnot? Nope, no license for them either....

Using a co-sponsor sounds like a good way to get around the poverty guideline rule.

If the only obstacle to their getting a license is money, by all means let them find a

co-sponsor. Really, our main concern is the well-being of the child; it doesn't matter

who pays child support as long as someone does.

People who admitted to smoking marijuana at some point in their lives and now need

waivers of sorts are not drug addicts, they are idiots who talk too much.

You'll know a real drug addict when you see him/her.

I agree that the idea in itself is not bad. I can just see so many ways in which it could go wrong.

Edited October 2, 2006 by jenn3539

[mawilson 2,133]

Yes, I know that and you know that. My point is that IMO the government tends to overdo things, so why would they not in this case?

They might, but we shouldn't reject an idea based on fears that are purely speculative.