Xath said:
We had a debate about this in my ethics class yesterday. Most people were of the opinion that you should have to meet certain standards to have children, such as a suitable income and environment to support them, and a certain intelligence level to not do idiotic things like the above.
Aside from the ethics, I think this would only be feasible if you had 100% effective, reversable sterilisation.
i.e. Everyone would be sterilised at age 10, and it wouldn't be removed until you had got your "parenting licence" (with the sterilisation being reapplied if you lost said license).
Otherwise, what do you do when either a woman who doesn't have a license gets pregnant, or a woman gets pregant by a man who doesn't have a license?
Force her to have an abortion?
Force her to have the baby adopted? (Presumably by a couple who do have a license).
Of course, my huge ethical problem with it is that:
a) This is a massive intrusion by society (a.k.a. the government) into something (family life) that has hiterto been regarded as something that should be left to individuals. (For example, what if society/the government decided that membership of a particular religion disqualified you from having children?)
b) It smacks of being guilty until proven innocent.