The Most Merciful Thing of All

This is something that has been circulating the blogs as of late.  This is the question of, should childbirth be government-mandated?  Or to put it another way, should people have to obtain permission from the government to have children?

Answer:  Yes.

I care so much about your kids that I want to prevent them from existing.  I want to prevent them from being subject to a life of poverty, crime, drugs, child molesting, juvenile pregnancy, child abuse.  I want to protect them from meeting that fate.

It's -- sigh, you don't even need to wade into any philosophical waters.  The obvious practical real-world examples trump any philosophical argument.  There are consequences of not implementing this policy, which we witness on a daily basis with our own eyes and ears.

Stipulations would include the following:
•Any violent criminal history is an automatic no.  No exceptions.
•Anyone under age 21 is an automatic no.  But they may reapply when they achieve this stipulation.
•People who are not married are an automatic no.  But they may reapply when they achieve this stipulation.
•Anyone currently without a high school diploma or GED is an automatic no.  But they may reapply when they achieve this stipulation.
•Both the wife and the husband have to be present for the interview, and both must be active throughout the entire process.  No exceptions.

If an extreme liberal wanders by, they will start foaming at the mouth that I dared utter a solution that is just so... realistic and practical.  They will also probably be chomping at the bit in a frenzy, in this opportunity to accuse me of being "racist."

Really?  So it is racist to have standards?  You do realize that nowhere in these provisions does it say that the couple must be non-black?  If a certain demographic or person feels that this discriminates against them, then this is more of a commentary on that demographic or person than on the standards.
   
Can anyone out there honestly put forth a rebuttal about why this would be construed as a bad idea?  Supply us with any logical supportive debate.  Practice some critical thinking -- give some thought to the future of the nation; some thought to the future of the economy;  some thought to primary and secondary school education; some thought to health care funding.

Please do not attempt to counter-argue at me with some story about how you know a girl that had a baby at age sixteen and despite this she managed to turn her life around and get a waitressing job, go to community college, get a two-year nursing certificate, and managed to make a life for her and her baby.  And yes, I can say this without needing to meet any of you -- it is always a "her" and "her baby."  The baby daddy is usually out of the picture.

I am not asking for a requisite survivor story about someone who charged on "despite" having a baby while still legally a juvenile.  That is not answering my question.  My question is that I challenge anyone to provide a logical, reason-based argument as to why it is a good idea for any seventeen-year-old or even eighteen-year-old to become a parent.

Please don't bother trying to hide behind some knee-jerk accusation that this would be practicing eugenics.  I can already predict the HH Goddard-like accusations rolling in.

Implementing ideals of social intelligence, personal responsibility, social responsibility, and maturity -- this is not eugenics.  This is smart public policy and planning for the future.
--

I can predict that a lot of people will come back with, "But it's a human right to reproduce!"  Yes, and just like all human rights, this one will be taken away if you violate the human rights of another human being.  You murder someone, you can't have kids.  You sell drugs, you can't have kids.

These legal proposals
This is not as far-fetched as one might think.  This is no different from legal restrictions that are placed on criminals currently.

This is exactly the same conditional restrictions placed on people in other societal regards.  They are not allowed to vote, they are not allowed to have driver's licenses.  Usually the state will issue a state-issued identification card.  They have to be registered se_ offenders.  Many places of employment will turn someone down if they have a violent crime in their legal record

-------
A couple that presents themselves as wanting to have a child would have to go through a rigorous involved interview process.  This would include criminal background check, employment history check, educational background check, drug abuse history.

Just FYI of a small bit of “liberal values” -- medical history is something that would not be taken into any consideration whatsoever.  Diabetes, asthma, family history of cancer, family history of heart disease -- none of that would have any weight on the decision whatsoever.  There is no evidence that a state of increased physical medical maladies contributes to faulty detrimental child-rearing.

In addition, we're not trying to turn this into a eugenics camp.  We are trying to ensure reshponsible parenting that produces normal, psychologically healthy children that can turn into normal, productive members of society.

A credit history -- hmm.  That is one that I am deliberating on.  I don't want this to turn into some sort of "only rich people can have children."  US department of health and human services has statistics that show that middle-class families are just as capable of raising healthy, productive children as rich families.  However, an overview of a person's credit history does give a good indication of how responsible a person is (with managing money, personal responsibilities, rent, employment opportunities).

Actually, simply the fact that a couple would be applying to have a child is enough reason to allow them to have a child.  The fact that they truly want a child would carry water in their favor.       is plenty evidence that they truly want a child.

People that would not bother to apply for a child would not be allowed.  Whether you want to admit it or not, that helps everyone.  They don't want a child anyway, and we would not have to let them have one.  No teenagers, or in worst-case scenarios, no drug dealers, drug addicts, prostitutes, strippers, armed robbers, serial rapists, or other violent types would be allowed to have children.

An interview requirement is not a far-fetched proposal at all.  Currently the branches of the government do all of the following whether at local, state, or federal levels.
•We interview people for jobs.  We have to make sure they have the necessary skills, background, and qualifications.
•We interview people to see if they are competent to serve in jury duty.  And we interview people to see if they are competent to stand trial.  We discern whether they possess an even temperament and good judgment.
•We interview people to allow them to become immigrants or citizens of this country.  If we can interview and then apply judgment on whether or not to let people stay in this country legally, then we can certainly interview and apply judgment to allow people to reproduce.  And that is on EVERYBODY in this country -- whether they were born here or not.
•We interview couples if one spouse is applying for immigration through the other spouse who is immigrant or citizen.

If some dumbass still tries to come back at us with the argument of, “The government should not be allowed to judge who should become a parent and who should not."

My response is, why the hell not?  *Someone* has to have the judgment.  Since tens of millions of people have so obviously demonstrated that they do not have the capability for good judgment on their own, they have summarily asked that the decision be taken out of their hands.

And look, I'm joking on this next point, but only partly.  Any applicants for parenthood should be made to hand-write a sentence of the Board’s choosing.  This would be a grammatically complete sentence, and the applicants would be evaluated on proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

This sentence would include words that are frequently abbreviated for convenience in texting, emails, YouTube comments, and the ilk.  This would include homonym words that are often confused with each other in written communication.  Common culprits include the word "you're," which too many dumbasses write as "your.”

Some leeway could be given to couples for whom English is a second language.  This means that they are fluent and proficient in another entire different language, and English is a second language for them.  That puts them roughly at two hundred percent language capability of the average American.  However, there is no excuse for poor command of the English language for someone that was born and brought up in this country.

I should point out that that this [[[[request behest ]]]]] also is not unusual.  When applicants are interviewed for naturalized citizenship into this country, they are made to write down a sentence, presumably to check for correct spelling, punctuation, and general knowledge of the English language.  I had to do that myself to become a naturalized citizen.  And although you might not be able to discern this from the general tone of my essay, I really didn’t mind doing it.