Why has no one thought of this yet?

Here’s what I don't understand.  Why is there no such thing as underground, black market birth control?

It only stands to reason.  There are such things as illegal street drugs and back alley abortions with coat hangers, which are life-ruining.  The abortion thing is disgusting-- it's violence against women.  A female would be much better served by using birth control in the first place.  Birth control is a positive thing.  It is most certainly very badly needed.

However, to hear the chicken-little liberal bloggers on the internets, birth control shops are being barricaded and dismantled, and the DEA and Homeland Security are confiscating all the corrupt contraband condoms.  The apothecaries are not allowed to dispense birth control without three forms of identification from the patient, two of which are photograph IDs, a complete criminal background check, a signed declaration of waiver disclaimer, and a $10,000 bail bond.  Supposedly lots of people badly want birth control that can't get any.

So, this black market birth control.  Don’t try to tell me it's not possible to do.  If drug dealers can cook meth at home by stealing a big drum of methylene from chemical supply warehouses (hey, I watch "Breaking Bad"), and people can commit filthy dangerous septicemia-risking anti-sterile surgery (that's what abortion is) in a shack downtown...

Introductory college chemistry labs often have students make aspirin as a lab project.  So surely birth control, which is a chemical, can be manufactured outside of corporate labs.

I am sure there is some way to get condoms onto the black market.  Import them from other countries if they are impossible to get from US countries.  Street drugs come from other countries.  So surely someone can get condoms from other countries and then into the US black market.

And yet, you never hear about the DEA doing a drug bust on an extensive birth-control-distribution ring.

Or even better, do black market vasectomies.  None of that consulting several office appointments with a doctor crap.  If a guy does not want kids, it is his right to end that possibility of physical burden right then and there.  Without having to jump through hoops for the mainstream medical establishment.

-----

On an unrelated note, I can't believe no one sees this other than me:

+

=

Seriously, if the two of them had a kid on the show,

and it visited them from the future, it would look exactly like this guy:

The Truth: Margaret Sanger Was Not Racist, Nor Was She Pro-Abortion

Why do so many people keep demonizing Margaret Sanger?  She was not, as far too many people mistakenly believe, in favor of abortion.  Nor was she preoccupied with exterminating non-white races.

Take the time to read her own accounts of this.  She had originally been charged with performing abortions for women who did not want to have more children.  Margaret Sanger herself was shocked, appalled, disgusted, and horrified at the fact that the women had to resort to this to keep from carrying pregnancies to term.  These women had no choice but to rely on having their insides sucked out, probed, prodded, scratched out, and subject to this kind of violence simply because they wanted to give their bodies a break from the grueling labor that was pregnancy and childbirth.

Because of what Margaret Sanger witnessed, she became a staunch advocate of birth control.  Precisely because she was against abortion is the reason that she founded an advocacy group that provided women with contraceptives.

She was a happily married woman who wanted safe, reliable birth control for herself and her husband.  The vast majority of women for whom she wanted access to birth control were married women who just wanted reasonable spacing between having children.

Margaret Sanger advocated BIRTH CONTROL.  Say it with me, people, birth control.  Now spell it:  B-I-R-T-H-space-C-O-N-T-R-O-L.  She did this for the express purpose of reducing abortions.

People seem to think she was racist.  Why, because she thought mentally handicapped people and poverty-stricken people should not have children?  How the hell is that racist?  That is not racist; that is common sense.  It is good judgment and it is showing concern for the future of society not to desire reproduction from mentally handicapped people.  Mental handicap and poverty can strike anyone of any race.

The fact is, mentally handicapped people and poverty-stricken people are NOT equipped to be good parents.  Social and emotionally-evolved creatures such as human beings need parents who are fully capable of raising a child with love, discipline, structure, and order.  A child fares best if he/she is raised in a stable, loving household where the two parents are married and treat each other right, neither one is violent or asshole-ish, neither one does drugs, and both are educated.  Mentally handicapped people are not capable of this.

It is a crying shame that general pop society is given to stupidly-swayed political correctness, because this prevents truth from being broadcast.  Raising children costs money.  Raising children requires nutritious, healthy food, it requires clothing, it requires ample hygiene and sanitation, that means laundry detergent, soap, toilet paper.  Raising children requires the parents to be able to afford regular doctor check-ups; it requires being able to easily afford rent each and every month; it requires being able to live in a safe, clean, secure place and not just any old ragtag slum housing; that means working functioning pipes with clean water.

I have witnessed that the type of people that are convinced that Planned Parenthood is "evil" are twisted, messed up people with horrific, tragic lack of intelligence.  This includes both extreme conservatives as well as extreme liberals.  They have a complete lack of good judgment.

----
More on Sanger and the Negro Project: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html

The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at NYU (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/) is an excellent resource for debunking many of the other myths about Sanger.
----------
Original Link: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html

“The Sanger-Hitler Equation” #32, Winter 2002/3

Search for Margaret Sanger’s name on the Internet and you will quickly be bombarded by claims that she supported Hitler and the Nazi’s human elimination programs, or at the very least inspired the Nazi architects of race improvement. “Hitler and Sanger Join Hands” blares one anti-Sanger diatribe; “Margaret Sanger, Sterilization and the Swastika” is the title of another; “Let us look forward to the day when Planned Parenthood clinics are made into holocaust museums,” concludes another attack on Sanger’s writings. One web site features photos of Sanger and Hitler united under a Swastika. Another inserts the phrase “concentration camps” into a 1932 Sanger speech to demonstrate her real motives, a novel form of textual annotation that is then passed on like a virus to other sites who point to the phrase as documented evidence of Sanger’s final solution.

Though this disinformation campaign, designed to arouse anger and anti-choice activism, resides largely on the Internet, in colorful, sensationalized pages, even the more respectable print outlets have picked up many of the most extreme Nazi-related allegations about Sanger as voiced by anti-abortion activists at newsworthy events or on Op-Ed pages. They then print them without comment, in effect publishing them as fact. The Associated Press, for example, reported on an anti-abortion march in Birmingham on October 14 of this year, quoting a participant who described Sanger “as racist as she could be,” and linked her to Hitler’s race policies. A Canadian paper, the Calgary Sun, ran a Sept. 1 opinion piece that claimed Sanger “backed the Nazi race purification program until it became unfashionable.” And even though mainstream publications are not actually calling Sanger a Nazi, they are, increasingly, referring to her (as the New York Times did in a September 19 article on the opening of the Museum of Sex in New York City) as a “eugenicist” before associating her with birth control.

Every year there are dozens more characterizations of Sanger as a pro-Nazi, genocidal racist appearing in newspapers, right-wing biographies and purported histories of planned parenthood, and especially on the Internet. Sanger is by no means alone among controversial social reformers and liberators painted as grotesques by extremist opponents of their beliefs and accomplishments; Martin Luther King, Jr., and Eleanor Roosevelt can ably compete with her for this posthumous fame. But the attacks against Sanger resonate in a way that attacks on others do not, largely because of the emotions generated by the abortion debate.

Unfortunately these misrepresentations of Sanger as a Nazi sympathizer who carried out her own quiet form of genocide through abortions, the spread of harmful contraceptives and the advocacy of racist “eugenic” policies – supported by the circulation of Sanger’s controversial writings on eugenics – have begun to infect unbiased student research that is increasingly dependent on unverified and unsubstantiated information only a mouse click away. Granted most of the Internet sites that link Sanger and Hitler as the dark angels of human carnage don’t hide their pro-life, anti-choice associations. But the “Big Lie” theory works – the more you say it, the more it sticks.

Sanger never met Hitler, except in her unconscious (see below). And the reality is that despite the fact that Sanger’s anti-militarism and isolationism during the 1920s and 1930s at times obscured her abhorrence of the Nazis, she was deeply shocked and horrified by the evils and dangers of fascism, Hitler and the Nazi party. “All the news from Germany is sad & horrible,” she wrote in 1933, “and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.” (MS to Edith How-Martyn, May 21, 1933 [MSM C2:536].) She joined the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda and “gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.” (“World War II and World Peace,” 1940? [MSM S72:269].) For Hitler the feeling was mutual; in 1933 the Nazis burned Sanger’s books along with those of Ellis, Freud, German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, and others. (Ellis to MS, Sept. 3, 1933 [LCM 3:385].)

How then does Sanger end up keeping company with Hitler? In this predominantly Internet-based netherworld of revisionist Sanger profiles there are two paths linking Sanger to Hitler, and they frequently intersect. On one, Sanger is accused of murdering millions through abortion, either directly as an abortionist, or as the primary force in creating a culture that devalues human life as evidenced by the rising number of abortions through the twentieth century. This is the unacknowledged “holocaust” commandeered by Sanger. In these absurd depictions she was an even more efficient killer than Hitler or Stalin. One well-quoted assault on Sanger’s legacy, George Grant’s 1995 book, Killer Angel, charges Sanger with the “brutal elimination of thirty million children in the United States and as many as two and a half billion worldwide.” The fact that Sanger’s clinic did not offer abortions and that she advocated birth control as the only remedy for abortion does little to dispel the myth that Sanger pressed abortion upon the masses.

But the main vehicle used to metamorphose this feminist liberator into a Nazi is Sanger’s limited and largely self-serving role in the short but spectacular rise of American eugenics – a movement that sought to apply the principles of genetics to improving the human race. By lifting passages from Sanger’s writings on eugenics and sterilization while failing to provide the complete argument or proper context, and by linking her with notorious racists within the eugenics movement, debunkers of Sanger’s achievements have given her a fiendish make-over.

In one of the seminal texts in this extremist assault on Sanger, the 1979 Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (both its title and cover – pictured here– prepare the reader for the many leaps of faith to come), the author suggests that Sanger, through her “eugenic” writings and speeches, put into motion a “‘polite’ genocide with an army of biologists, sociologists, eugenicists and psychologists at her side,” and did so without raising any suspicions among the people. (p. 24) So effective was Sanger as a propagandist, claims the author, that her debased “values” have become “those of modern Western civilization and are rapidly becoming the morals which dominate the rest of the world.” (p. 9)

What is, of course, overlooked is that Sanger used the popular eugenics movement to help promote birth control as a science-based remedy for overpopulation, poverty, disease and famine. Incorporating the rhetoric of the eugenics movement into her writings allowed Sanger to make a stronger biological argument that fertility control was necessary for the improvement and health of the entire human race, not only as a means to liberate women. Sanger did seek to discourage the reproduction of persons who were, in the terms of her day, “unfit” or “feebleminded,” those, it was believed, who would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. And she did advocate sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control. This was a popular position espoused by many progressive medical leaders, scientists and health reformers of the day – those groups who Sanger hoped to win over to the birth control fight. But in approaching eugenics as a propagandist rather than a scientist, Sanger’s language became dehumanizing, her eugenic recommendations overly simplistic, and her understanding of genetics flawed. Take the oft quoted 1931 “My Way to Peace,” in which Sanger recommends that the government:

  . . . keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class . . . apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. (Jan. 17, 1932 [LCM 130:198].)

These are harsh words intended to appeal not only to eugenicists, but social and health workers who came in contact with all manner of sickness and suffering. Sanger was not referring to short stature or pattern balding when she used the phrase “objectionable traits,” rather she was talking about diseases such as syphilis that were ravaging especially the poor. Unfortunately, she did sometimes apply the term to moral as well as mental defects, though never as virulently as others in the eugenics community.

Offensive terminology aside, Sanger’s beliefs, however inhumane they may seem in the current age of medical enlightenment when human suffering is much less visible in our daily lives, actually came from her direct experience with the poor and oppressed. An illustration can be found in a 1932 letter written to Sanger by a woman requesting birth control advice:

  “I will be thirty-six years old on December 16, 1932. and I shall have been married fifteen years on December 13, 1932. During this time I have given birth to eleven children, of whom four are now living–a boy of 13 1/2 years–a girl of 12 years and twin boys two years old. Three of these eleven children were born badly deformed–one with a hare lip and split palate and two with excessive water and a frog-like form. The last birth (one of the deformed ones) was in August 1931 and had to be accomplished with instruments and the Doctor . . . feared for my life and warned us against further pregnancy.” (Client to MS, July 5, 1932 [MSM S7:218].)

Such dilemmas led Sanger to the strongly held belief that the best way to reduce human suffering was to first provide greater access to birth control. It was also necessary, she argued, to somehow regulate the procreation of those individuals likely to pass on physical or mental disease and disability who were incapable of using or denied access to contraception. But her writings on eugenics, including her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, argued that eugenic measures in and of themselves were not practicable. Instead, she concluded that women’s empowerment through birth control offered the only viable means of improving the human condition.

While “My Way to Peace” is brutally frank and among the most extreme of any of Sanger’s eugenic writings, it does not condone race-based eugenics. Sanger never accepted the racial hierarchies that led to the deadly racist policies of the Nazis. Rather, she vehemently rejected any definition of the “unfit” when it referred “to race or religions.” (MS to Sidney Lasell, Jr., Feb. 13, 1934 [MSM S8:541].) This was not true of the broader eugenics movement, both in Europe and the United States, which blurred the distinction between good science and racial prejudice, and generally failed to protest the perversion of its ideals under the Nazis. A number of American eugenicists excused or even commended reprehensible Nazi race policies camouflaged, however poorly, under the veneer of science.

Sanger did write to and share organizational memberships and conference programs with any number of eugenicists, including such champions of scientific racism as Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, who ran the genetics laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York; and Leon Whitney, secretary of the American Eugenics Society. All of them conflated physical and mental deficiencies with racial ones. While Sanger publicly criticized these most notable eugenicists for their opposition or indifference to birth control, she never publicly condemned their racial views. Her silence is damning in retrospect, but it does not make her a Nazi.

Those who insist on labeling Sanger a Nazi claim time and again that she inspired the men who unleashed the barbarism lurking in eugenics, yet many of the men she supposedly roused to action had, in the main, only a grudging respect tinged with contempt for the woman they saw as a major deterrent to their quest to breed more of the “best.” And though Sanger sought their support for birth control, in most cases she failed to win their endorsement. With few exceptions, American eugenicists advocated increased breeding among the “fit,” defined by them as white Anglo-Saxon Protestants with middle or upper class values, and viewed birth control as the major impediment to the proliferation of these “better stocks.”

Even more than her links with American eugenicists, Sanger’s so-called association with Ernst Rudin, the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munich, who helped align prevalent eugenic theories with Nazi race policy, has been featured in nearly every right-wing assault on Sanger’s legacy. The grounds for charges that she knew, corresponded with, or influenced Rudin stem from the April 1933 Birth Control Review (BCR), a special “sterilization number.” Rudin did contribute an article to this issue, as did Harry Laughlin and Leon Whitney and other eugenicists. The issue also included excerpts from the works of Havelock Ellis and influential gynecologist Robert Dickinson. Taken as a whole, the issue presents a clear, if not always comfortable, debate on compulsory sterilization, with forceful arguments for and against, and calls for further research on sterilization as a eugenic measure. But Sanger had resigned as editor of the BCR in 1929 and no longer had any affiliation with the publication. Nevertheless the BCR issue has been held out like a smoking gun in the campaign to brand Sanger a sterilization missionary and Nazi sympathizer. What is never noted is that the one voice absent in the issue is Margaret Sanger’s.

Historians must grapple with the phenomenal amount of material that is being dumped on the Internet. This flood of historical “evidence” is at once liberating and dangerous, for it includes information and disinformation, and there are no help menus to tell the difference. This has become an immense challenge to historical editors who seek to deliver accurate texts in historical context. Some of the incredible attacks on Sanger have existed in book and pamphlet form for several decades now, but in the past only the most zealous would pay for them or go to the trouble to track them down. Now search engines bring them in an instant to our desktops. With sensational headlines, comical juxtapositions, bold assertions and a kind of Twilight Zone aura about them, these anti-choice, anti-Sanger web sites appear to have a sizeable and growing audience. And therein lies the problem; the proliferation of extremist material makes it all seem less extreme, more acceptable to students, journalists and others looking for a quick take on a controversial and complicated figure. History is never that easy.

Teenagers, Pregnancy, and Birth Control

I am completely one hundred percent in favor of teenagers using birth control.  My primary reasons for thinking this are the following:

I do not want to see even more unplanned pregnancies or unwanted babies cropping up.  It is a drain on society's finances, it is a drain on society's sanity, and it is also quite a drain on those teenagers that get pregnant or that get others pregnant.  They are screwing up their lives even further beyond damaged emotional health, STDs, and physical scars.

If liberals were completely honest with themselves, if they were to stop and think and really examine their motivations for this, they would realize that they are in fact doing the exact same thing.  They are also acknowledging, however grudgingly, the fact that teenagers are not capable of being good parents.

Liberals also acknowledge the fact that teenagers do not possess the mental acuity, nor the mental rigor to be good judges of things.  They do not have self-discipline, self-control, self-respect.  They do not have the ability to stop and think, "Hey wait a minute, how am I ever going to be a parent if we do get pregnant?"  They are not capable of consciously controlling their actions, and they are not capable of making good decisions.  They are primitive, less-evolved living creatures that are not in control of their actions.  They are not able to stop themselves from doing something that could have very regrettable consequences.

The best thing we can do for them is take the decision out of their hands and force them to use birth control.

Teenagers do not have the personal growth, psychological maturity, foresight, planning skills, or organization skills to be good parents.  They do not have the selfless love, the endless enormous copious amounts of patience, the sums of intelligence, the self-actualization skills to be a good parent.  They do not have the self-awareness of their own personalities so that they have a good understanding of their own patience levels, their temper, their anger thresholds, the ability not to panic in emergency situations.

But they are also too stupid to know how stupid they are.  What they do have is too much stupidity to be able to realize, "Hey, I don't want to risk making a baby.  Maybe I should not have sex."  They lack the psychological maturity to handle being parents.  But simultaneously they sure as hell DON'T lack sex drive.  Hormones, libido, that sort of thing.

So basically the consensus is that teenagers are somewhat primitive, a bit unevolved.  They lack critical thinking skills.  Which is really pathetic because this is not that difficult; it's not critical thinking at all.  Sex=babies.  I don't want babies, therefore I should not have sex.

They succumb to their primitive urges right on cue.  But then they lack the capacity to follow though and handle the consequences of those urges.  They do not possess the responsibility required to be parents.

So we as a society are left to make the decision for them.  We have decided to allow them to have sex, after all, it's only their bodies' urges.  But they should not be allowed to bear children.

And if liberals actually analyzed the masked, hidden, profound reasons for being in favor of birth control for teens, they would realize that they agree with me.  If they stopped to take the time to examine their motivations, it would dawn on them that they think the exact same thing I do.

Yes, you can be judgmental.  I sure as hell am.  You know the reason that I am all for birth control for teenagers?  My real reason is condescending, snide judgment, sneering and absolute:  I don't expect much from these people.

My expectations of them and of what they might achieve in life are pathetically low.  What is expected of them is sagging, flaccid, sad, ludicrous.  I don't give them a whole lot of credit, because they have done nothing to earn it.

We see that they have no morals, no self-respect, no self-control, no self-restraint.  They have no capability of higher thinking, no evolved demonstration of emotions, no sentience, no good judgment.  They have no being able to think through and consider what the consequences of their actions might be, no self-awareness of the sort that evolved free-thinking creatures of a higher order should have.

Just like pets.  Just as cats and dogs are incapable of thinking ahead to probable consequences of their actions, weighing the pros and cons of their decisions, and choosing wisely based on what the most likely outcome is, so too are teenagers incapable.

Push birth control.  Keep pushing the birth control.

I am also doing this to save those teenager-produced babies from what would be their own horrible (most likely) existence.  Mostly I am doing this because I want to save those poor little beings that otherwise would be forced and thrust into a horrible, abusive, heartbreaking, unthinkable existence.  I am doing the most merciful thing of all -- I am preventing them from existing.

Mostly this is because I don't want these teenager people foisting yet another generation of failures and losers onto society.  I don't want to have to shoulder the burden medically, financially, insurance-wise, state education funds-wise, federal education funds-wise, juvenile delinquent system-wise, criminal justice-system wise.  Nip it in the bud.

Why shouldn't teenagers get pregnant?  Because they are not capable of being parents.  They are nowhere near the psychological maturity required for the enormous responsibility that is raising another human being.

Then why don't they just not have sex?  Because they have physical urges, AND at the same time they lack the mental capacity to overcome these urges and choose not to have sex.

Therefore, to try to make the best of a bad situation, the least we can do is make them use birth control.  At least this way, if they want to go and spread diseases and heartbreak, they at least would not be able to drag another innocent being into the mess.

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.