^^^Thats not a great system. It doesnt encourage anyone to change, or better themselves.
Originally posted by Slay
Read Heinlein much?
Originally posted by snowdragon
Nope, there is always a need for more trashmen and dishwashers.
Originally posted by riv6672
^^^Thats not a great system. It doesnt encourage anyone to change, or better themselves.
Perhaps, but we have to weigh the options, and I think we should not sacrifice personal freedom or child safety for it, which seems to be what the ideas put forth in this thread would do. For example I think things like open and extensive sex ed can help with the issue. And so can economic programs aimed at supporting job growth in high poverty areas.
I'm all for ideas that facilitate personal improvement, but not at the expense of creating a police state or the development of the children in question.
I tell you what, i dont see -Pr-s compromise keeping people from having children who will be even less cared for.
My ideas arent meant to be pretty, just effective.
You get on public assistance and keep having children in violation of the law? Make those children Wards of the State.
The children will be supported, and the State will have a say in raising them to not perpetuate the cycle they were born into.
Originally posted by riv6672
I tell you what, i dont see -Pr-s compromise keeping people from having children who will be even less cared for.
My ideas arent meant to be pretty, just effective.
You get on public assistance and keep having children in violation of the law? Make those children Wards of the State.
The children will be supported, and the State will have a say in raising them to not perpetuate the cycle they were born into.
Well, we already take children that aren't cared for from their parents, no? I mean I suppose we could do a better job at finding children that aren't cared for. On the other hand, people on government assistance can still be good parents, so just a general "We'll take your children" doesn't seem of service to these children either.
I mean the foster system does its best, but it's not ideal either.
Re: Re: Should there be a limit to the amount of kids you can have?
How would that even be managed?
"Congratulations ma'am, it's a girl! I see here that the legal documents state that you already have two children. So this one is going to have to be put to death and harvested of its organs. So don't get too attached."
Originally posted by Raisen
There should be a law that you can't have more children while on public assistance
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, we already take children that aren't cared for from their parents, no? I mean I suppose we could do a better job at finding children that aren't cared for. On the other hand, people on government assistance can still be good parents, so just a general "We'll take your children" doesn't seem of service to these children either.I mean the foster system does its best, but it's not ideal either.
Originally posted by riv6672
Not what i was getting at.
We're theorizing here, so, putting them into already established systems isnt what i was talking about.
If under the law you cant have more children (while on PA) and do, the children become wards, and while adoption is still on the table, the foster system is re-tooled to a more military/boarding school environment where the children are raised to be physically and mentally fit, and yes, patriotic.
These children are given aptitude tests throughout and encouraged to pursue those aptitudes.
This wouldnt be cheap.
But if we end up with a generation of young men and women contributing to the work force, being everything from trash men to doctors, instead of having been raised to themselves go on PA and have more children they cant afford, it will have been worth it.
Hmm, yeah, I'm starting to see that we just have fundamentally different views of how society should be. I would view that as a huge overreach by the government, akin to a quasi-military society, which is not in line with what I think the values of the western world are. I would also view it as unjust towards the children taken from their parents and brought up in this strict (military/patriotic) environment.
I mean I can see where you are coming from, and it may even work achieving some of the goals you state, but it sounds to me not just like Heinlein's ideas it sounds to me like Huxley's dystopia.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, yeah, I'm starting to see that we just have fundamentally different views of how society should be. I would view that as a huge overreach by the government, akin to a quasi-military society, which is not in line with what I think the values of the western world are. I would also view it as unjust towards the children taken from their parents and brought up in this strict (military/patriotic) environment.I mean I can see where you are coming from, and it may even work achieving some of the goals you state, but it sounds to me not just like Heinlein's ideas it sounds to me like Huxley's dystopia.
Dystopia is a hungry abused neglected child on the street.
So yeah, we do see things differently. I have no problem with that. You seem like someone who cares about the system and those its meant to serve.
You and i are of a kind...
I don't think there should be a limit on the number of kids you can have, but if you are on government assistance I think there should be a cap on the amount of financial aid you receive. I'd say you max out at 3 children for financial aid, but you'd receive shipments of prepackaged generic food and clothing for each additional child.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, yeah, I'm starting to see that we just have fundamentally different views of how society should be. I would view that as a huge overreach by the government, akin to a quasi-military society, which is not in line with what I think the values of the western world are. I would also view it as unjust towards the children taken from their parents and brought up in this strict (military/patriotic) environment.I mean I can see where you are coming from, and it may even work achieving some of the goals you state, but it sounds to me not just like Heinlein's ideas it sounds to me like Huxley's dystopia.
Let's call spade a spade: this is fascism we're talking about. Heinlein wrote damn good sci-fi, but he was also a dumb prick who advocated for a military-worshipping fascist state. May he rot.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I don't think there should be a limit on the number of kids you can have, but if you are on government assistance I think there should be a cap on the amount of financial aid you receive. I'd say you max out at 3 children for financial aid, but you'd receive shipments of prepackaged generic food and clothing for each additional child.
Re: Re: Should there be a limit to the amount of kids you can have?
Originally posted by Raisen
There should be a law that you can't have more children while on public assistance
I'm actually surprised this isn't a law already. Or rather if you have a kid while on public assistance you shouldn't get an increase in the money you get. For me it would be crazy if we would increase the amount of aid we give someone because they decided to have a kid even though they know they can't support one. It's not fair to the people whose money is used to give aid and it's not fair to the other people on aid.
I remember also seeing people complain when some state tried to make it so if your kid missed school you would not get your welfare. Parents complained, and keep in mind this wasn't like "if your kid misses a few days due to an illness" this was only for kids who didn't show up for a long period of time.
Originally posted by Q99
Well, I'll start out by noting we don't have an overpopulation problem, like, at all.Then I'll note the 'do it by whether they can afford it' suggested nicely is going to hit poor people, and due to the economic balance, minorities, while meanwhile ignoring those 'Quiverfull' types that Surtur mentioned in the op entirely.
Plus, of course, you can be pretty sure this is mostly going to be targeted at women in terms of enforcement... i.e. a guy who has multiple kids with multiple people is unlikely to be affected.
So we're talking, most likely, a very invasive limitation of liberties targeted at, by the sounds of it, women minorities and the poor. Just think about how that's going to go over politically for a second.
What about the liberties of the children born to people who cannot adequately care for them? Are poor and minority children less deserving of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education than middle-class white children?
I do not see how children born to Quiverfull families would be exempt. The Duggars for example do not have health insurance for themselves or any of their children. They rely on charity from Christian health care providers in their rural community and government assistance.
And if women become the focus of enforcement, it is not because they are being targeted for their sex, it is because of the nature of biology and the limitations of medical technology.
I could foresee a system like vaccination. Students are required to attend school until a certain age, at which time they can withdraw from school without parental consent. To attend public school, students are required to have certain vaccinations.
Before entering a public high school, students could be required to receive a contraceptive implant. They last for three years, which means they will need to be replaced when the student turns 18 and can legally decide for themselves if they wish to continue.
It could also be a condition of receiving federal aid to attend college, just as registering for Selective Service.
If at any time someone would like to purposely have a child, they can have the implant removed. But having to take that step makes family planning more deliberate.
And once people see how they benefit—not having to cut their education or career goals short; not having to get married, take on additional jobs or responsibilities; not having to live in poverty—they may choose to continue with this process until they are ready to have children.
And just like vaccinations, people who are homeschooled, or attend private or religious schools will be able to circumvent the policy. So parents who are concerned about the contraception policy do not have to enroll their children in public school, and students who are concerned about the policy do not have to take federal money for college.
Yeah I have to say I think if someone wasn't allowed to have a child because they legitimately can't afford to take care of one why would that be bad?
One would think the quality of life of the child would take precedence over the fact that some poor people who can't afford it still want to bring a life into this world.
So then pretty much the only way to not end up on the street would be to get government assistance. To which should we really assist people who knew they couldn't afford to raise a child, but went ahead and had one anyways? After all having a kid is a choice. As opposed to if someone has kids and has a job and then gets laid off and needs government assistance. That person wasn't bringing a child into the world knowing they couldn't care for it.
If you know ahead of time you can't afford a kid then it's time to use condoms, right?