I wanted to spark up a new debate and this seemed a nice subject, should we allow anyone to have kids or only people who have a license?
Should we force abortion on unsuited parents or take their kid away if its already born and what standards should this licence have?

uhm
imo everyone has the right on children
making ppl only having children with license is a bit harsh
instead you could do this
when a couple gets a baby, you could make em do a parenting course, on how to do parenting ... well is only an idea i just made up though. if they refuse the child could be taken away
and if they are financially low, could give some gov help just for the well being of the child
if giving money , then they should control its being spend well on the well fare of the child if not the baby could be sent to an institution where they can take care of the baby , allowing off course the parents to visit whenever they want

although im sayibng things that will cost money to the goverment or institution
wich could possible demotivate an idea like this

but licensing parents to have children .... its like going for a drivers license ... baby is not a car or anything else

edit: just saw the pic i didnt see before :S
well in such cases im not sure...
child could be taken away to be properly educated about human values or put the family under observation
i know its drastic

There are some things the government should never control, and one is the right to breed as it is a basic "human rights" and need. It would be liking having a license to eat. There are those who really shouldnt have children, there are enough messed up kids and deadbeat parents in the world as proof of that, but no one has the right to tell them that they CAN'T.

Though what with overpopulation i think a cap on how many kids someone can have looks good on paper, though in action it wouldnt work, china is a good example as people as many have merely emigrated to a more liberal country and really it is just as bad as dictating who can and cant have children.

having a cap on children in china might sound logical but not here in europe

Having more than 2 kids should be taxed. Actually no, that would be another case of rich people can do what they want (not that they seem to have a bus load of kids anyway) but then again why not, really. If you can actually afford them fine but if you are going to keep having them and let the government pay for them then GTFO

This sounds like a decent idea, but it isn't very realistic, unless you were forcing contraceptives on people until they got their license? If you was going to do the forced abortion thing then various organizations would like... eat you. It would be hard to pin down exactly what makes a parent suitable anyway since some of the "best" parents end up producing kids that are a bit psycho.

Is it everyone's "right" to breed? I'm not so sure. Not if they can't support their offspring in a physical or mental capacity. We look down on China's harsh policies now, but what will we do when we are really overpopulated?

hide the Pill in milk
distribute to the masses
There, the job is done!

Except for those who are allergic.

Anywhoo this is an interesting topic becauseeee my aunt and uncle adopted a child a couple of years ago due to them being infertile or something I dunno, but anywho they had to go through all of these interviews and close friends and family had to be interviewed and someone had to come inspect the house and then even after they got my cousin, more people came and inspected the situation to make sure the living conditions were still right. I thought this seemed funny considering Crack whores come into the hospital and have a baby and go home and the child may never be checked on. It seems kinda silly that people who want to adopt have to basically get a license whereas people who can naturally conceive don't have to worry about such things.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect parent. My parents pretty much let me do whatever I want. I was never grounded or punish because at a young age I was taught what was right and wrong. The moment my sister or I started hitting or biting my parents would stop it immediately. As a result we were never terrible or bratty children, got along well with each other and other kids. Now we're allowed to do anything we want and my parents don't care what I do because they can trust I know how to act.

There are other parents who are too harsh or restricting on their kids. My friend is out of high school and her parent's won't let her be in the car with a driver who's not an adult, have any kind of sleep over, she's never been drunk and the list goes on. The problem with this is they're over protective and when the children have to live on their own, they'll go crazy. She wants to party and once she starts to live on her own she'll have the freedom too and she'll probably burn out because she doesn't know how to balance having fun and the basic needs to stay alive.

I kinda agree with you, but they could do the same thing with born kids as they do with adopted kids.
And some pressure from parents is good imo because I owe it my current position, because if my parents hadn't pushed me I would never have made VWO (the pre uni highschool) but would have been stuck in some lower level.
I hated it at the point but am really greatfull now

But thats not really the problem, I kinda meant the parents who really don't give a damn or set bad examples. (like the pic above)
Like my mom who knows a woman who threw her child in a daycare after 4 weeks and was proud that it was already there..
Whats the point of a child if you don't see it O.o

Warning: What follows will sound cruel to the sensitive. It praises natural law.

When I was a teenager, MENSA was pushing for legislation to "sterilize the stupid". I didn't agree with it back then, but now.... yeah. There are a lot of people who just should not be allowed to contribute to the gene pool. Period. I do not believe the government should be the ones to dictate who gets the castration. It has to be done by a broad group of intellectuals who take several factors into account, and must never be based on the Rorschach test. Being a firm believer in many aspects of the natural law of eugenics, people with a low intellect ( I would LOVE the cutoff to be an IQ of 148, but that is simply too unrealistic, so 112 would suffice), people with genetically and maternally passable diseases (i.e. herpes), violent criminals (not the guy who shoots someone for raping his wife, but the rapist), homosexuals and people who have shown that they honestly believe others are inferior because they are simply another color than them, should all be sterilized. We could clean up our species, thereby strengthening it substantially, in just a few generations.
Quantity does diminish quality in many cases, and humans are no exception. We have entirely too many kids who are going to grow up to be nothing more than burdens on society, or worse, due to their parents being unfit to parent.

Licensing for parents? No. We don't need licensing. We need to cull the herd, for it is the downfall of mankind that we coddle our unfit.

I'm not sure where the person is from that made that meme up there, but here in the USA proper (read Arizona and Texas, AKA the last bastion of some semblance of freedom) we don't need licenses for firearms ownership, since that would make it a privileged, which is unconstitutional.

Lol I had 148 on my last IQ test, so thats cutting it close o.o

But to a point I agree, do what china does and just allow one child per family.
Maybe also reinvent boarding schools, take the kids away and give them proper education.
Things like this used to be commonplace from the the Greek period till the 18-19th century. Send away the kid at 7 and see him back at 17.

And that is exactly why I would settle for 112 lol. For entertainment, I like to pound as many Guinness as I can in 4 hours, then randomly take online IQ tests. So far, my research has shown that 15 pints of Guinness in a 4 hour period will cost 40 temporary IQ points. Of course, the problem with IQ tests in the first place is that they are often localized, or overly specialized, which yields inaccurate results.

I worry about the institutionalized practices though... too much room for socialists to abuse. They do enough damage to kids in the public schools now. The entire education system needs an enema... has for decades. I could go on for pages about the lies and misinformation fed to me and my classmates by public school teachers. Of course, it's peanuts compared to the idiotic ideas many parents feed their kids. They treat their children like Silly Putty, constantly trying to mold them into mini me versions of themselves, instead of letting the kid grow.

I think that 112 might do it, but IQ is far too inaccurate, because it focuses on only a few types of intelligence, omitting other useful kinds of intellect like that of an artist, which is useful to express general moods and give people a non-violent way of letting their anger go (reading books probably helps quite a lot of people, it's also good to help your brains relax: authors are also important!)
So I think that by selecting on intellectual level, too many important roles, like that of the artist and the author, which do not really require a high intelligence on an IQ test, are omitted. So I think that it wouldn't really work out that well
A restriction of children might work, but then you would also restrict the amount of intelligent children, even more because the chance that a child from intelligent parents is also intelligent isn't 100%, so it has some serious flaws in my opinion

too lazy to read all the stories now.

in a way i do agree with this, this will kind of assure our youth will not be raised by foul hands. however, sometimes the goverment is reallly bad at judging this, more, who is there to judge one's ways?
ofcourse, there are some things that are bad like neglection and abuse, and for that sake it would be very good.
but all other ways? its up to the parent how to raise the kid, albeit done consciously, i stand for that.
there have been examples of kids being taken from parents because others tought they were not raised well, wich was not true, that is rediculous and breaks the parents psychologically.
there that will be the harshest thing to do, but i think a bit more of social inspection wont hurt, if for that sake.

[!@#$] licence companies.

Really it would make more sense to go by personality types. I'd much rather a stupid but kind hard working type reproduce than a intelligent but lazy and cruel person.

As Einstein said, there are different types of intelligence anyway, if you just want high IQs why not allow only people with high functioning autism to reproduce?

You are absolutely right, selecting just on IQ is stupid, since a society can't run with just people with a high IQ
Other forms of intelligence are also required, though these are harder to measure. It is in my view almost impossible to select who is allowed to reproduce and who isn't, at least with our current level of technology
We simply can't select well enough yet