I watched the movie "Parenthood" for the first time in two decades. Anyway, in this movie, there's a line said by a rather young Keanu Reeves (from his "burnt" days) in which he says something along the lines of "you need a license to drive a car, you need a license to catch a fish, but any asshole can become a father."
Were they on to something in the eighties?
I hear horror stories all the time about child abuse and child neglect. I think it's quite possible that requiring a license to have a child would put an end, or at least minimize, these issues.
I think that some of the teenage sexual escapades may be decreased if a license is required - although I don't know how it could be enforced in any way. I mean, is there really a way it could be enforced? But then again, they probably had similar debates regarding other licenses such as fishing and driving, and people probably asked the same question; how are they ever going to know if someone driving a car actually has a license? And what types of penalties would there be for having a child without a license?
And, then we raise the question of what happens "if..." Let's face it, whether it requires a license to have a child or not, teenagers and others are still going to have sex, and with that lies the possibility of getting pregnant. How would we face that issue? And, some might consider it a violation of their rights as Americans. Or what happens to the rape victim. Will these mistakes end up pushing the abortion issue even further up the drama scale?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You know I have honestly thought of this before. It honestly would stop people from having kids in which they may be unfit to have. I think that it should be a law but as long as it does not get to over whelming. It shouldn't stop people from having kids because of population control, and rules should not be too strict. I mean pretty much as long as you prove you can be a good parent you should be able to have a kid. But it would stop people from having kids they don't care for that much just to get more money from the government.
My sister-in-law is one of those people. She and my brother-in-law have five kids and I have those kids right now while they are going through a messy divorce. Well, my brother-in-law just forwarded a letter sent to him from Food Stamps office; she is still claiming to have all five children in her house to get food stamps, despite letters from her and his attorney granting me temporary power of attorney and temporary guardianship of those kids.
As far as regulations, I agree with you. I mean, it's not like you can only drive a car twice with a single license, so why be limited to only one or two kids per license? Maybe we could borrow some of the guidelines they use for becoming a Foster Parent or to outline the sorts of restrictions you mean?
-------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
Yes that would work too. I never thought about the foster parent rules.
I have brothers like that. One brother has 2 kids and his girlfriend has one from a previous relationship and both of them do not work or anything. Another brother made the mistake of having a kid with a girl who will not let him have the kid outside of the regulated hours that he can have her. And my oldest brother has 5 kids from 3 different women and they sit down at my grandmas 90 percent of the time.
This is both a good idea and a crazy one. I say this is because some of the ideas are way more abstract then you realize. I mean what is a good parent, and is the liscense just an okay for any kids or an okay for two then you can get an upgrade stamp for more like they do for quail? then there is that whole question of treating people like animals and government getting to involved. Of course child regulations worked really well for the people in china and the over crowding situation they had. It might be better to teach our children good family values and how to stick things out and how not to take more then they can handle by setting limitations and educating them and praying it works. I had read some were once, i am not sure were, that educated women have less children...i do not know but it was a good thought
on one hand it may impede on what people feel is a right to have children when they want without question or judgment. On the other...we have those who cross the border illegally without proper identification and have their children on U.S. soil. Those children become automatic citizens; with full rights guaranteed by the government. This feeds into the ever growing illegal immigration problem. So perhaps requiring a license for having children would help prevent that sort of issue.
I agree with tgunnegan... How can the gov define what it takes to be a "good" parent and be granted a license.
If you read various parenting guides, you will see an array of opinions on parenting - the same goes for defining what a good parent is or does.
Furthermore, the freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness is protected. Some (if not many) would consider the ability to have a family to be a major source of happiness, but now we have to apply to have children?
Not to mention that our birth rate (or was it called replacement rate?) in the U.S. isn't very high, a bit over 2. So really, the birthrate is just above replacement. If population control is your interest, how about looking more into immigration and border control.
I relate this sort of law to the pro-life movement - i do not want any Gov. deciding what i choose to do with my body.
Besides, would a license to have children really stop teen sex? As you said, it would probably only equate to an increase in abortions (whether or not they were legal) or even unsupervised (and dangerous) births.
-Antonea
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -George Bernard Shaw
When people violate their one child rule they simply give them a forced abortion. I think most (not some) Americans are repelled by this concept.
I think this would be a giant step away from individual freedom and a giant step towards a fascist state where the government dicatated every aspect of people's lives.
I think the government does have a legitimate role in reproductive rights though when a particular citizen makes their children the public's business by failing to adequately provide for them or neglecting them or abusing them. I would have no problems with sterilization being a condition of collecting welfare benefits. And being a fourth generation rancher I know that castration has a gentling and calming effect on livestock and I believe it would work similary well with abusive and violent men.