I don’t want to know what “the article” says. I want to know YOUR take on this.
Personally I think it’s placing too much emphasis on the supposed autonomy of children, considering they are dependent on parents. Also how they derive much of themselves from parents.
But I said read the article about the model. Because that’s part of this.
As noted, you’re new here. Some words of advice: People here don’t like to be told to go read an article. The expectation is that the OP will summarize the salient parts and make a case for or against. Until you do both of those things, don’t expect this thread to go anywhere.
Links are meant to be read, that’s why people post them. The point is to instill a system that is part test and intense screening for parents who want children. If they fail then their right to have children is revoked until they pass. It also says the age for having children will be between 31-46 years. Parents who get pregnant but don’t want it will be able to give up their child to someone who does and who has passed the test.
Okay, fine. Now what is your proposed solution for people who are deemed “not fit” to be parents.
Says the guy who joined here, what, 2 days ago? You were given advice. It’s your choice as to whether to follow it or not.
Has any government in history ever passed such meddlesome and tyrannical laws? Not even China’s One Child Policy did this.
To be honest I don’t know. I’m trying to figure out what’s wrong with such a policy. Every time I ask people they say it sounds good, but I don’t think they understand how impossible it is to implement. So I gave the link in order to try to illustrate the idea. It starts around halfway down the page.
No. People have told you what’s wrong with the policy, but you ignored what we’ve said. Most of the posters here are not saying “it sounds good” and if you think so, you haven’t read your own thread. Go back and read posts # 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 29, 40, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 54, 68.
Every single one of those posts is disagreeing with the idea.
Do we count?
The fundamental problem here is reproductive rights. We’ve already established that people have the right to control their reproduction. So end of debate unless we revisit that.
Err, no. Definitely not, if you think collectivist and anarchist are antonyms.
I hate the very idea of eugenics, but am in favour of some fair mechanism of limiting the number of kids we produce, to the point of negative population growth…
Best model I could come up with was an economic one - every adult gets the right to have some fraction - say, 3/4 - of a kid.So any couple, neither of whom have bred yet, gets to have one kid just by virtue of that, and still has half a “kid credit”. One quarter kid each. They can trade those on some sort of open market. Or in private transactions - like, say, a voluntarily childless person could give all their credits to their sibling to have more nieces and nephews. Or just get the cash from strangers. But such a plan would rely on some outside-imposed birth control or criminalizing freebirths, and I don’t want either of those. But at least such a model lessens the whole eugenics aspect of population control most other models seem to have, and leaves a path open to having more than one kid if you must. And the numbers can be tweaked - 1.25 kids/person if you want population growth, 0.333… if you really want threesomes to be a thing 
I think it was Brave New World by Aldous Huxley where the whole institution of parenting was taken from the masses and entrusted to a select few well trained and qualified people. The whole idea of a mother or father was considered craven and barbaric.
In general, people are not qualified to raise the children born to them. They have to learn on the fly, such that it takes five years of hands-on experience to be even remotely close to being able to deal with a 5-year-old. Most people don’t “get it” until their kids are grown and gone, and then it’s too late.
Before the Age of Transportation, this wasn’t a problem. When the child begins to have children of their own, they have the parents (now grandparents) on hand to help with advice, respite and advocacy. This is what’s lost, in today’s modern and industrial society it is very common for grandparents to be far removed from their grandchildren. This source of experience and understanding is taken away.
Licensing … ridiculous … in countries with very high literacy rates we see negative population growth already … what good is contraceptives and written instructions to someone who can’t read?
Not quite that extreme, but are you aware of how kids were raised on kibbutzim?
I see some confusion here. There is a question of reproduction, and whether biological reproduction should require some kind of standards and/or licensing. IMO, that is an entirely different question than one about standards and/or licensing for raising children.
In theory you can let anyone reproduce, then seize the infant to be raised by “qualified” people in some other environment.
Which thing should we be discussing here?
While there has been much discussion about the morality, not so much about the practicality of implementing such a scheme.
How do you stop men and women having children? You make sure they never meet.
If you think it’s impossible to segregate men and women, think of Saudi Arabia. Think of very orthodox Jewish communities, and other religious groups. Unauthorised contact may not be impossible, but it’s certainly difficult and risky.
These sort of societies are in my view horrible, but they do exist.
The issue I guess would be raising the children.
But the concept here is to have people who want to have children take and exam and undergo a psychological and lifestyle screening (I think) in order to see if they are fit to raise and have kids. Then there would be inspections every year to check up, and they would last five days.
But what exactly would make such “qualified” people actually able to. I mean the reason children are born is because the parents want to raise them. If you put it with the government then that would remove the motivation to have kids.