- NEW!
by lady fuschia on November 3rd, 2005
I hate to state the obvious, but I've never known anyone shoot anybody with a loaded child.
by chrisbell on October 5th, 2009
perhaps its not the responses that are wrong, perhaps its the question.
personally i dont think many parents are fit to bring another life into the world. I beleive if you are to bring a child into the world you must be able to take care of that child entirely of your own accord. this does not take into account " accidental" kids.
Perhaps if the parents would require financial assistance then during pregnancy they are identified and during precnancy provided proper advice on how to actually parent and raise this new life into the world.
food for thought
by Ron C on September 12th, 2009
I think that people should be licensed to have children. They should meet personality, intellectual, and financial requirements. They should also have to renew those licenses every 5 years to insure that they remain proper parents. Of course that is about as likely as intelligence tests for Congressmen.
by Glenn Blaylock on September 3rd, 2005
In a society where you have people are yelling about a woman's right to control her own body, where they take this to the extreme of saying that parents don't even have the right to be involved in a minor daughter's choice as to have an abortion, do you really think that anyone is going to get a law passed that would require a potential parent to get a license before they have a child?
Personally, I think that such a law would be a gross breach of personal freedom. True, some people should not be parents. However, I don't know that there is any sure fire way to determine who will be a rotten parent in advance of their becoming a parent. If I am not mistaken, most states have laws that prevent proven child abusers from retaining custody of their children, but that is about as far as I would be willing to go with such restrictions.
by dwin1979 on June 16th, 2006
Considering how many women get pregnant and have children accidentally, without meaning to, it wouldn't make much sense to require a license for childbirth. You certainly couldn't force women who didn't have a license and were accidentally pregnant to have an abortion or put their children up for a adoption if they didn't want.
by knotcrafter@yahoo.com on October 14th, 2009
Parenthood definitely isn't for EVERYBODY, but somehow childbirth just doesn't carry the same tone of lethality as carrying a loaded gun around. Its difficult to understand the context of your query, given that the two conditions seem totally unconnected.
by dumdum on October 5th, 2009
So you are suggesting what- no regulations on guns or more for having children? Not excatly a novel question and not really sure how they are connected to each other. Life, laws or men are not so ordered or logical that are things make sense when compared to each other because often they are considered as seperate issues. +5
by LarryH54 on September 12th, 2009
Gun ownership is a civil right. Children are a natural right. You would have to get your 'license' from God Himself.
by frank peters on December 24th, 2005
How could you control this birth licence in the first place? Would the authorities yank the kid out of the womb if ya could not provide the birth licence? Let's put it this way, most Governments of today, want as many kids as possible, Why, for tax dollars of cause! When the kid starts work, they pay taxes, even at birth, kids pay taxes through their parents. Buy a pram, buy a nappy, visit a doctor, buy a lollie, all the Gov wants is your dollars. Looking at another answer by someone else, yes kids are seen as property, even today, parents own their kids, they make them wash the car, mow the lawns and if the kids are lucky, they may get a buck here or there for doing such things. Parents abuse thier kids for cheap labor like in the slave era. Kids can't complain to anyone about their slave conditions, as the authorities will tell the kids, they are owned by their parents, thus kids are not people, but slaves to those whom own them.
by Roger Kovaciny on November 12th, 2005
In the good old days, it was expected that people would get married before they would have children, so a marriage license was a license to have a child. Society's interest was expressed by having such requirements as no STD's and being of age. The age requirements aren't a bad idea, either. Any doctor will tell you that it's safest for a woman to risk having a baby only after she's 18, otherwise the pelvis may be too narrow to allow the baby's head to pass.
by KCTrey on August 17th, 2005
I think your analogy is a little flawed. It would be easier to relate to as, "Why do you have to have a license to get married, drive, fish, hunt, etc, but are not required to get a license to have a child?" or maybe, " Why do you have to pass an interview to adopt, but not to have children?"
The gun analogy is a stretch. Gun licensing laws were passed because of their potential in violent crimes. Even though I am a card-carrying NRA member, and am VERY anti-gun-control, I still realize that guns were designed to cause injury or death.
As for having a license to have a child, I think there could be some very good reasons to do it, but we are a long way off.
So here's your answer: You don't have to have a license to have a child because, as of now, no one has been able to get a bill passed to require it.
And remember, children don't kill people nearly as often as guns do.
Cheers!
by Taciano8 on October 14th, 2009
What did you just say?? Carry a gun? Man, who carries a gun in the first place?!
by Anonymous on October 5th, 2009
how are these related to each other?
by Legend In Your Own Mind on January 23rd, 2010
I assume you base this on something that actually makes sense, but I have yet to see it.
The world is already loaded to the rafters with unwanted kids of almost every race so first let's deal with them before tossing even more kids into the boiling cauldron.
You can hardly claim we're going to simply give them to "couples who want, but can't have kids" because that line of bullshit reasoning has been tossed around forever in the abortion debate and we still have millions of kids in the US alone nobody wants.
Those mythical couples only want cute, perfectly formed white babies so now what ARE we going to do with all the "ugly kids" and kids who have been born with birth defects or who have mental issues or any of the other thousands of reasons to reject them?
I know.. YOU take care of them all! And when YOU have run out of money to care for them ALL we can then revoke your license to raise kids and we'll be right back in the cauldron.
Do the words "ignorant bastard" ring any bells in your head?
by Legend In Your Own Mind on January 23rd, 2010
Don't tell me... You're the best mommy ever? You and you alone should be in charge of deciding who gets to keep their kids and who has to give them up and you base this criteria on whether said persons are financially stable and other pidly nonsense things.
I mean, if a kid grows up poor they might start learning to appreciate the value of a buck and that's not good...right?
A lot of people said I had no business raising kids. Well I did manage to raise them and both are now productive, respectable citizens raising their own kids.
Damned! If ONLY you could have been in charge back then......
by Legend In Your Own Mind on January 23rd, 2010
oops..duplicate answer...must have been my bad parentage skills.
by SherlyTemple on January 20th, 2010
First off I completely support the idea of permits for child bearing, but I have thought about the cost and maintenance to run such a program. First, we would need to provide some sort of birth control method for the entire population. This would be very costly. Next question would be, how would we inforce such a thing. We already have trouble managing gun control laws. Second, if people did need a license or permits, what would the basis be for obtaining a permit? Would doing this start up a black market for selling babies and children to "unlicensed" parents? Likely, this would occur, what we do with all the children that were sold on the black market? Although, I believe that we need to work on changing our current system; requiring a licsense or permit is just not a feasable option.
by Juan de Nadien on January 26th, 2010
Who gets to choose who has a baby? Who sets the perameters? Who gets to say who has to have a baby? What kind of punishment is doled out for the stupid 14 year olds that get knocked up? The same people that hold so sacred a woman's right to choose whether to bring a baby to term would be in a position to say if someone could have a baby at all. To what end would this be? Population control? Only some people deemed worthy would be allowed to have babies? Would there be quotas? We had too many white babies last year so this year only black baby permits will be issued. How fucking silly is that? Don't think it will happen? Once you give a bureacracy the ability to decide whether or not people should have kids, they would start choosing who.
I would also want to know the requirements. A college education? Financial security? A decent home? Family history? If everyone was held to the same standard, then it would be mostly rich white people meeting the requirements. What about Blacks and other minorities? They would get exceptions, right? But since their families could never afford college with in a couple of generations you would rich white people and poor everyone else.
Yeah, the world isn't all kittens and unicorns and rainbows.
by purplecows on May 18th, 2010
In America, no license is required to carry a gun openly. You're thinking of a CONCEALED gun.
A license used to be required to have a child. It's called a "marriage license."
by Shurie.Smile on January 2nd, 2010
I'm sorry but are you kiddin me? I'm not even gonna go into how moraley wrong that is because mine are different from yours, but you need a liscene to have a baby, you would need a liscene to have sex. Because even while on BC and using condoms there is still a chance to get pregnant, and if you did get pregnant, wtf arethey gonna do about it? MAKE you have an abortion? MAKE you give it up for adoption?
Guns are tottaly different from babies. You can hurt someone with a gun that is manmade, but a child is nature
by dumdum on September 12th, 2009
If you one to try to equate all things to each other you'll drive yourself and those around you nuts or as others may state it, this is a non sequiter - one has no connection to the other.
by Sam8988378 on September 14th, 2005
At one time in history women and children were considered property of some man, either a husband, father, a default male relative, or whoever bought them. In some places, this is still true today. Having children meant free labor, someone to take care of you when you were old. At that time, guns weren't licensed, and any attempt to license childbearing would be viewed as economic interference.
No one knows, with any provable certainty, what happens when you die. Having children is the most common method of achieving immortality, something which proves you were here. Especially when your children continued to have children (when are we gonna become GRANDPARENTS?), is seen as cementing your place as someone who actually existed. It's also an easy, inexpensive way. Not everyone can create a foundation, endow a college, build something. All you need is working reproductive plumbing. You could also pass on your stuff, and would be remembered for having neat stuff to pass on.
Religion is the biggie. Who hasn't heard that phrase "be fruitful and multiply" from the Christian Bible? Multiplying is one way of providing a steady source of followers, insuring the survival of the religious institutions. Mandating a license to have children means setting qualifications which some people won't pass. Most likely it wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge (1st amendment "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion or prohibiting its free exercise..").
Believe me, seeing self-centered people spawn self-centered children, who in turn produce broken offspring, I agree there should be something in place! At the very least, a mental health evaluation. Too many people haven't exorcised the negative messages of their own upbringing, instead passing them along to their own children. Perhaps a carrot instead of the stick?
by purplecows on May 18th, 2010
if we are required to get a license to cut hair, why isn't a license to go skiing necessary?
by Moongrim on October 5th, 2009
Because we don't have that level of control, yet.
If such came about, then watch the rich folks get off scot free.
How do I legally change a name after marriage?
by Answerbag Staff on June 2nd, 2010
| 2 people like this
If you could choose another Color for your blood, what would it be ?
by anil m 7 hours ago
| 4 people like this
How long after marriage can a female change her name?
by Answerbag Staff on June 2nd, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What does it cost to change your name?
by Answerbag Staff on May 21st, 2010
| 2 people like this
what gift can I give you for your birthday? what would you really like?
by Bornabrit 7 hours ago
| 7 people like this
You're reading If we are required to get a license for carrying a gun, why isn't it a license to have a child necessary?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Great answer!!!
by Grandma Roses - my avatar is my real dog on November 7th, 2005
ROTFLMAO! Wonderful answer! (But if *I* had given a funny answer to this question, "G.R." would have rated *me* "INCORRECT.")
by HungryGuy on December 5th, 2005
Your logic is unassailable... and hilarious!
by Merry Walker on January 9th, 2006
Funny. Your dry wit is great.
by Jodie44 on January 31st, 2006
LOL--that was hysterical--I just peed in my pants!
by Answers101 on March 7th, 2006
yeah I didn't think so either, but hey anythings possible. *sarcasm* a liscene for a child would be like saying you OWN your child, there for a liscene to a slave.
by Shurie.Smile on January 2nd, 2010
Lon Horiuchi shot a woman who was armed with a baby.
by purplecows on May 18th, 2010