Having to have a licence to reproduce?

Tackel · December 10, 2014, 10:50:01 AM

What if at the age of consent, you had to apply for mandatory licence to reproduce? If you had a hereditary disease or illness, you couldn't get a licence. You wouldn't need this licence to have sex, but just to reproduce. If you get a woman pregnant, and during the time of conception you weren't registered, you'd get a hefty fine ($200,000.00 for example). Those with hereditary diseases and illnesses wouldn't be able to reproduce legally, but could still have sex (through protection or surgery).

It would benefit Humanity as a species to help weed out some disabilities that have been effecting our species for years, while not taking the "lolhitlerkillinfieorrace" way.

Would something like this be immoral? Would you support it?

Mad Max · December 10, 2014, 10:51:02 AM

You should be sterilized at birth and have it reversed when you are approved for your reproduction license.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · December 10, 2014, 10:52:30 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

challengerX · December 10, 2014, 11:00:23 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · December 10, 2014, 11:10:36 AM

I fully support this cause.

clum clum · December 10, 2014, 11:16:50 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on December 10, 2014, 10:51:02 AM

You should be sterilized at birth and have it reversed when you are approved for your reproduction license.

I know there's a movie about that somewhere.

Alternative Facts · December 10, 2014, 11:29:33 AM

Wouldn't support.

The Lord Slide Rule · December 10, 2014, 11:34:01 AM

Impossible to enforce. Too easily abused for underlying motives if actually possible.

Easy alternative, genetic engineering and procreative beneficence.

DAS B00T x2 · December 10, 2014, 11:53:59 AM

My inner social Darwinist says fuck yeah, but my inner libertarian says that the OP should be slapped for even thinking about this.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · December 10, 2014, 11:56:51 AM

Quote from: DAS B(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ on December 10, 2014, 11:53:59 AM

My inner social Darwinist says fuck yeah, but my inner libertarian says that the OP should be slapped for even thinking about this.

Naru · December 10, 2014, 02:28:40 PM

Too difficult to do

Epsira · December 10, 2014, 03:18:27 PM

It's difficult for me to comment on what's better for other people because I don't usually care what they do unless it influences me. For myself I have no preference with or without because I don't plan on reproducing. It's a great waste of time personally. I can understand why people have kids, just in my plans they don't really have a place... And I wouldn't like screwing up someone by socialization... And I don't even like kids.

For the populace... I'm seriously drawing blanks. One thing I'm considering is the time it will take for medicine to advance to a level where birth defects can be cured, even serious diseases. I also wonder if this would be economically feasible for all the effort to be put into it, even with the aforementioned hefty fine (which would have to be agreed upon).

More Than Mortal · December 10, 2014, 03:20:32 PM

If we could do it, then absolutely.

BaconShelf · December 10, 2014, 04:28:06 PM

Yes. It would eventually wpe out a lot of serious disabilities in a couple of decades and stop populations from going beyond what we can handle, if implemented well.

Another thought, should the income and other aspects of a person's life be looked at while applying? IE if they would likely rely on the government then they would be refused