2006-12-31 04:48:26 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Great question!!!
2006-12-31 04:49:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because we think of having children as a personal right and what democracy would dare to put demands on having children and risk losing the elections? I do believe, however, that some handicaped people with mental abilities below average are not allowed to reproduce, because their offspring would be born in a more severe condition. That is how it is in Sweden, but that is perhaps not very relevant to the topic.
However, if you think about it, you don't need a license for a dog in all countries. Also, the dog is not really yours until you aquire it. To make a parallel comparation, it's like adopting a child, and in that case, there are very tough demands almost everywhere.
Another factor is that many countries in the Western world have a declining population and they need all the children they can get, whereas other countries, such as India, would probably not be able to maintain a control over such a regulation.
But the main reason is as I said before: it wouldn't be very popular, and therefore, no political party would try to impose such an idea.
2006-12-31 05:01:57 · answer #2 · answered by wizzard_bane 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a good question!
with dogs- the owner is REQUIRED to have shots, yearly vet visits, and you are also RESPONSIBLE to FEED them with YOUR OWN MONEY!
Children being born left and right on the other hand are being fed by the tax payers money- and the more children a female has the more well fare check she will get, so in fact the female producing the babies= a dog in heat!
I know that is mean, but I live in Atl, and most of the ppl around here live on the system, and get free everything, and all the while I'm struggling to feed, clothe, and care for my kids, AND take care of my dogs too.
ok I'm off my soapbox!
2006-12-31 05:42:47 · answer #3 · answered by BubbleGumBoobs! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has always been my personal opinion that long-term birth control (i.e. Norplant, Depo-Provera) should be mandatory and regulated for females by the age of 14. Then before a couple is allowed to have children, they should be put through psychological testing. Kind of crazy, I know, but wouldn't it solve a lot of problems?
2006-12-31 04:53:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
A license is a tax on pet owners to pay for all the bad pet owners who leave their animals on the side of the road.
2006-12-31 04:57:29 · answer #5 · answered by goose1077 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Politics.
2006-12-31 05:06:48 · answer #6 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't that be nice, but even having a license for a dog doesn't stop alot of stupid people from maltreating them.
2006-12-31 04:58:50 · answer #7 · answered by Firespider 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to license a child also. It's call a social security number.
Remember you get the dog before the license.
2006-12-31 04:50:37 · answer #8 · answered by rob u 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
So people like you have something to complain about. They are just providing a needed service.
Happy New Year.
2006-12-31 09:18:44 · answer #9 · answered by sexmagnet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most children do not run around biting the neighbors. And because the counties or states got it passed as law or ordinance. dah
2006-12-31 04:50:52 · answer #10 · answered by swamp elf 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree . And one to go fishing . The child-abuse we know about is enough to make one shudder ; let alone all the cases we don't ever hear about .
2006-12-31 05:57:26 · answer #11 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋