Licence to have children

Johnnyhpipe

You need a licence to own a TV, you need one to own a dog. If you adopt a dog, you’re checked out to see if the home is suitable - yet any sort of person can have children.

Would you be in favour of people being reversibly sterilised at birth? The sterilisation can be reversed in your 20s/30s assuming you meet the licencing criteria.

Would this lead to a better society and help control the world’s spiraling populations?

Personally I’d have no problem with it.

Shefwedfan

Not a license but maybe means tested

If you can afford a child you can have one, if not then no children

The issue in Ireland is the people that can afford children have 1-2 and the people that can’t afford to have children have 5 - xxxx

It should be othe way around

Collie D

Would you include yourself in the sterilisation programme, OP?

If not, why?

tigger123

That escalated quickly.

TheValeyard

tigger123 wrote: »

That escalated quickly.

I mean, that really got out of hand fast!

Mookie Blaylock

Can we not ask for abortion in the 96th month of pregnancy as you're at it OP?

corner of hells

Would I need a provisional license first , for practice rides ?

gctest50

Only provide childrens allowance for the first two children

Immigration will pick up the slack and might sort out the inbreeding here

El_Duderino 09

They do a kind of reversible sterilisation for drug addicts in some parts of America. It’s voluntary of course and it’s quite sensible.

The main opposition to it is religious because its a form of birth control. The religious manage to find themselves on the wrong side of so many issues.

corner of hells

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

I mean, that really got out of hand fast!

I'd it's your hand being used , it's not going to make a baby

Mookie Blaylock

corner of hells wrote: »

Would I need a provisional license first , for practice rides ?

You'd need a full license holder to be with you though...so for your practice ride ...do you want top or tail?

gmisk

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

You need a licence to own a TV, you need one to own a dog. If you adopt a dog, you’re checked out to see if the home is suitable - yet any sort of person can have children.

Would you be in favour of people being reversibly sterilised at birth? The sterilisation can be reversed in your 20s/30s assuming you meet the licencing criteria.

Would this lead to a better society and help control the world’s spiraling populations?

Personally I’d have no problem with it.

Why not go the whole hog and go down the eugenics route the same as the Nazis?
Honestly this site has become a bit of a cesspool recently.

Hercule Poirot

Think Sterilisation is ever so slightly OTT - but there should be some sort of mandatory parenting class before the child is born

But the state needs to do more regarding the development of the child as well - increased funding to allow children to be removed from parents who are guiding them down the wrong path so to speak and placed into a healthier environment, but the resources just aren't there at the moment

corner of hells

Mookie Blaylock wrote: »

You'd need a full license holder to be with you though...so for your practice ride ...do you want top or tail?

I'm thinking my firearms license might help.

McMurphy

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

You need a licence to own a TV, you need one to own a dog. If you adopt a dog, you’re checked out to see if the home is suitable - yet any sort of person can have children.

Would you be in favour of people being reversibly sterilised at birth? The sterilisation can be reversed in your 20s/30s assuming you meet the licencing criteria.

Would this lead to a better society and help control the world’s spiraling populations?

Personally I’d have no problem with it.

Sounds legit.

Would it not just be easier to go down the auld Chinese method of one child per couple, and apply to the govt for permission to have more? (If we're advocating introduced child bearing policies now)

No need to be interfering with fallopian tubes etc or whatever it is they do in forced sterilisation.

The old tv/dog/child license thing is a new and interesting concept though. Definitely never heard that analogy before.

**big black lie**:p

rob316

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

You need a licence to own a TV, you need one to own a dog. If you adopt a dog, you’re checked out to see if the home is suitable - yet any sort of person can have children.

Would you be in favour of people being reversibly sterilised at birth? The sterilisation can be reversed in your 20s/30s assuming you meet the licencing criteria.

Would this lead to a better society and help control the world’s spiraling populations?

Personally I’d have no problem with it.

I think this is the worst post I've read on here. That's some going

gctest50

gmisk wrote: »

Why not go the whole hog and go down the eugenics route the same as the Nazis? .......

The Nazis helped the VW beetle to come about

So if we start talking about beetles we're all Nazis ?

AdrianLM

The issue in Ireland is the people that can afford children have 1-2 and the people that can’t afford to have children have 5 - xxxx

Very easy to sort that out, Cap social welfare after 2nd child.

judeboy101

gctest50 wrote: »

Only provide childrens allowance for the first two children

Immigration will pick up the slack and might sort out the inbreeding here

Other way around. No children's allowance, but a generous tax credit you can only get if working full time and only transferable between married parents. Plus incentive for 3rd and subsequent children . We need to replace population and two kids won't do it.

corner of hells

I propose a license to post in AH , I'd probably never pass the test though.

Spleerbun

rob316 wrote: »

I think this is the worst post I've read on here. That's some going

Ah it's not that bad. The idea actually has some merits, it just sounds rather unrealistic

Spleerbun

Double post

Shefwedfan

rob316 wrote: »

I think this is the worst post I've read on here. That's some going

The snowflakes have arrived

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Anybody who would even suggest this needs their head examined and don't have kids of their own.

You don't need a license for a TV, that's just what it's called, in fact it is nothing but an RTE tax.

The standard to get get a dog license again is essentially nothing more than a tax.

Tusla and the state have a horrendous record when it comes to looking after children. Horrendous isn't a strong enough word btw.

More supports should be put in place to help parents, especially from 0-5. They are the most important years in a child's development and it's a time when parents are alone with the child most, and when a child is most helpless.

Outside of extreme substance abuse or uncontrollable mental illness, the best interests of the child are for it to be with their parents.

Forced sterilisation and making it easy for the state to take your children away is the type of dark dystopian nightmare that would be even too far fetched for an 18's movie.

I sincerely hope the OP is just a teenager or joking or both.

Shefwedfan

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Anybody who would even suggest this needs their head examined and don't have kids of their own.

You don't need a license for a TV, that's just what it's called, in fact it is nothing but an RTE tax.

The standard to get get a dog license again is essentially nothing more than a tax.

Tusla and the state have a horrendous record when it comes to looking after children. Horrendous isn't a strong enough word btw.

More supports should be put in place to help parents, especially from 0-5. They are the most important years in a child's development and it's a time when parents are alone with the child most, and when a child is most helpless.

Outside of extreme substance abuse or uncontrollable mental illness, the best interests of the child are for it to be with their parents.

Forced sterilisation and making it easy for the state to take your children away is the type of dark dystopian nightmare that would be even too far fetch

The standards to have a child are even less than to get a dog license.....

No idea what Tulsa have to do with it? No need for Tulsa if some people are not allowed fire out kids like they are smarties

eviltwin

If this was a thing my daughter wouldn't be here and yet we've managed to raise her to adulthood with no issues and she's very successful.

On the other hand my own parents were excellently placed to have a family and yet my childhood was miserable.

So, the answer is no.

Collie D

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The snowflakes have arrived

Haha, opposing mass enforced sterilisation is being a snowflake now.

Us "snowflakes" are grand to be honest as we know After Hours doesn't represent the real world.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The standards to have a child are even less than to get a dog license.....

No idea what Tulsa have to do with it? No need for Tulsa if some people are not allowed fire out kids like they are smarties

I'll assume you don't have any kids of your own.

eviltwin

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The standards to have a child are even less than to get a dog license.....

No idea what Tulsa have to do with it? No need for Tulsa if some people are not allowed fire out kids like they are smarties

Anyone can get a dog licence. You don't have to prove suitablity. You don't even have to prove you own a dog.

professore

No licence just no state support for more than 3 children. We need a good percentage of people having 3 children to keep the population from declining. Also state support should take the form of tax credits rather than children's allowance which is inherently sexist.

Edit: it appears either parent can claim it even though all the examples on citizens advice are mothers claiming it for their children.

BeerFarts

You know what's a better society? One that doesn't forcibly sterilize people.

amacca

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Think Sterilisation is ever so slightly OTT - but there should be some sort of mandatory parenting class before the child is born

But the state needs to do more regarding the development of the child as well - increased funding to allow children to be removed from parents who are guiding them down the wrong path so to speak and placed into a healthier environment, but the resources just aren't there at the moment

I think decrease funding is the way to go........have as many kids as you want, its just thst the state won't provide funding or incentivize you to do so beyond the first one or two.

We should try and incentivize people to act sensibly, responsibly and within their means up to a point. It costs too much to solve problems bought about by a poorly thought out divisive system that rewards fecklessness
And entitlement just because your reproductive organs are on the go constantly.

If we had a shortage of people then we could start rewarding baby making again.

gctest50

eviltwin wrote: »

If this was a thing my daughter wouldn't be here and yet we've managed to raise her to adulthood with no issues and she's very successful........

well it's you who deserve(d) more help if you wanted/needed it

and not having most of the help available vacuumed up by the likes of this :

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108523601&postcount=11



https://twitter.com/endacunningham/status/1058459399419842560

biko

It's a great idea as long the licence criteria is set by scientists and not by politicians.

SafeSurfer

Bring back hanging

biko

BeerFarts wrote: »

You know what's a better society? One that doesn't forcibly sterilize people.

The current ruling Social Democratic party of Sweden sterilized undesirables, 90 percent of them women, up until the 70's

Shefwedfan

eviltwin wrote: »

Anyone can get a dog licence. You don't have to prove suitablity. You don't even have to prove you own a dog.

Same as a kid, except with a dog you have to go and pay for a license, with a kid some people expect to get paid for having them

Capt'n Midnight

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Not a license but maybe means tested

If you can afford a child you can have one, if not then no children

I think it is agreed by all parties, that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom, a very great additional grievance; and therefore whoever could find out a fair, cheap and easy method of making these children sound and useful members of the common-wealth, would deserve so well of the publick, as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars: it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age, who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them, as those who demand our charity in the streets.

wexie

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Same as a kid, except with a dog you have to go and pay for a license, with a kid some people expect to get paid for having them

I never thought about it like that, you are so right!!!

Now, where can I claim for my monthly dog allowance and how much is it?

Shefwedfan

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I'll assume you don't have any kids of your own.

What difference if i do or don’t?

namloc1980

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The snowflakes have arrived

Brilliant. Now you're a snowflake if you question mass sterilisation at birth. Fantastic - keep it up. :pac:

dilallio

This lad could enforce it.

wexie

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

assuming you meet the licencing criteria.

What would the criteria be and who would set them?

Education?
Income?
Intelligence?
Political beliefs?
Religious beliefs?
Genetic profile?
Physical fitness?
Mental health?
Skin colour?

See where this is going?

SafeSurfer

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Anybody who would even suggest this needs their head examined and don't have kids of their own.

You don't need a license for a TV, that's just what it's called, in fact it is nothing but an RTE tax.

The standard to get get a dog license again is essentially nothing more than a tax.

Tusla and the state have a horrendous record when it comes to looking after children. Horrendous isn't a strong enough word btw.

More supports should be put in place to help parents, especially from 0-5. They are the most important years in a child's development and it's a time when parents are alone with the child most, and when a child is most helpless.

Outside of extreme substance abuse or uncontrollable mental illness, the best interests of the child are for it to be with their parents.

Forced sterilisation and making it easy for the state to take your children away is the type of dark dystopian nightmare that would be even too far fetched for an 18's movie.

I sincerely hope the OP is just a teenager or joking or both.

State control of child rearing is the only long term solution to inequality of opportunity.

Parents would provide for children through taxation but have no part in rearing them. One’s own children would not be identifiable so it would be collective child rearing. After all the family unit is little more than a patriarchal vehicle of inequality.

Bannasidhe

SafeSurfer wrote: »

State control of child rearing is the only long term solution to inequality of opportunity.

Parents would provide for children through taxation but have no part in rearing them. One’s own children would not be identifiable so it would be collective child rearing. After all the family unit is little more than a patriarchal vehicle of inequality.

The State is still dragging it's heel paying reparation for the last time it decided to engage in a bit of "collective child rearing".

wexie

SafeSurfer wrote: »

State control of child rearing is the only long term solution to inequality of opportunity.

Parents would provide for children through taxation but have no part in rearing them. One’s own children would not be identifiable so it would be collective child rearing. After all the family unit is little more than a patriarchal vehicle of inequality.

Yes!!!! That's the solution, rather than trying to make sure fewer kids get messed up by their parents lets just make sure they're all equally messed up.

batgoat

biko wrote: »

It's a great idea as long the licence criteria is set by scientists and not by politicians.

Pretty sure no respectable scientist would agree to help devise such a policy. Historically, forced sterilisation has never had a positive aspect. It's also classified as a crime against humanity under international law.

Areas in Canada operated such a policy against people they deemed "unfit" to have children for about 40 years, starting in the 1920s. They've compensated those affected to the tune of 142 million cad. Then you have the Nazis who engaged in it to try to eliminate what they deemed defects...


So it's more a question of what the hell is wrong with those who think it's a good idea..

Johnnyhpipe

wexie wrote: »

What would the criteria be and who would set them?

Education?
Income?
Intelligence?
Political beliefs?
Religious beliefs?
Genetic profile?
Physical fitness?
Mental health?
Skin colour?

See where this is going?

Exactly.

corner of hells

batgoat wrote: »

Pretty sure no respectable scientist would agree to help devise such a policy. Historically, forced sterilisation has never had a positive aspect. It's also classified as a crime against humanity under international law.

Areas in Canada operated such a policy against people they deemed "unfit" to have children for about 40 years, starting in the 1920s. They've compensated those affected to the tune of 142 million cad. Then you have the Nazis who engaged in it to try to eliminate what they deemed defects...


So it's more a question of what the hell is wrong with those who think it's a good idea..

Aww , somebody always has to drag the Nazis into it.

wexie

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Exactly.

Exactly what?

You'd be happy with those criteria?

You realize of course by those standards you yourself would most likely not be granted a procreation license*? (not, I might add, that would necessarily be a bad thing)


(check item 3)

Collie D

Collie D wrote: »

Haha, opposing mass enforced sterilisation is being a snowflake now.

Us "snowflakes" are grand to be honest as we know After Hours doesn't represent the real world.

There's a lot of reassurance to be taken from the suspicion that most of the posters that come up with these ideas (as well as the kind of charm displayed on the Irish women thread) will not be contributing to the gene pool themselves. All talk and no thought.