Should You Have to Get a License to Raise Children?

[lettucethesallad]

As much as I dislike bad parents and unruly children, I think this is a bad idea. A test like this fails in its subjectivity. What is good parenting? Apart from the 'obvious feed child, clothe child, take child to doctor if sick', what would the test be based on? Methods of raising children? There are _thousands_ of different methods and philosophies behind raising children. Which one would be taught? Which one is right? Who decides which one is right? Kids are not sprung from a cookie cutter, different methods work differently on different children.

Also, as has been pointed out, what happens if a prospective parent fails? Are they castrated/receive a vasectomy so as they'll never be able to have children, since they've been deemed unfit by society? What about rape victims that are impregnated? What about religious groups that are against abortion?

Or should we do like China have with the one-child policy - let people send in applications to have children, and if they are pregnant without the a-ok from the state, they're fined?

No. Bad people will be bad people, and yes, some kids will be unlucky enough to be born to these individuals. But to make society as a whole go through a test to conceive and do something that's natural and instinctive is rather sickening to me.

The government will decide what is best. They're better at this sort of thing because they have zillions of dollars to spend on the research.

Please tell me you're kidding.

 

[faspxina]

[Because a gun's purpose is solely to harm others (it's a weapon), that's why there's a license for it, although, civilian's shouldn't even carry weapons, license or not. (but that's a discussion for another topic )

Yes, I understand what a gun is for; my point is that I think it's just as reprehensible to allow people unfit to raise children to do so as it is to allow just anyone to have a gun. And to claim one in the interest of 'freedom' and disallow the other 'in the name of the common good' doesn't work for me (I'm not saying YOU'RE saying that but it's an argument I've seen). I think it's far worse for society in general to have all these 'throwaway kids' than it is to have the murder rate we do (and I do not say that to condemn firearms). It merely says to me that it's somehow important to make sure we cram as much life as possible onto this planet no matter how shitty those lives may be. I don't get it.

You're right, but the problem here is how effective (if at all) would this method be to justify using it?

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Firstly, a law like this could never be enforced unless the state was Orwellian and relatively small. Secondly, even if it could be enforced, passing the test and gaining a license doesn't necessarily mean your a fit parent: It just means you could pass the test, and there will still be millions of bad parents and dead babies. Thirdly, what would you do if they failed or refused to take the test? Are you going to force them to have abortions? What if they refuse that?! Kill them?!

The idea is horrid, and as much as I hate Bad Parents, most parents aren't morons and are capable of taking care of kids. We don't need to taken a freakin' test for something we can do instinctively.

While it'd be hard to enforce we could find some way at birth to temporarily neuter someone, later in life if they want to be a parent they can be un-neutered. Think about it, only a dedicated parent would want to have a procedure done on their most prized possession (all we'd really have to do is enforce it on 100% of males or females).


Edit: Yes that was a horrible thing for me to even consider.

THAT SIR, IS HORRIBLE AND MONSTROUS! THAT IS A TERRIBLE EXTREME AND I REFUSE TO EVEN DEBATE ABOUT IT! Although you did say that was Horrible yourself, so I will let it slide...

The exam also has a demonstration in it, yes you could fake it, but why would most human beings waste that much time to get a child they won't take care of? Also if they refuse to get an abortion then the child will be taken away at birth and they will have to pay a fee for it's upkeep even in another persons home. Kind of like how a divorced parent that got screwed in court needs to pay child support.

What if, oh say, the Child is born without the state knowing? Then what? How will you find the kid? It's not like the Parents will send their kids to the outside world until their 18. You just caused a lot of babies to be screwed over in their adult lives.

Also, how many people who have posted here about "Neutering the youth" are against the Circumcising of kids?

I don't think there should be a license or standardized test that approves or rejects applicants (seriously, forced sterilization or forced abortions based on things unrelated to parenting sounds like an awful and very elitist world, dude) but sometimes I think all expecting parents should get to attend free state-sponsored classes about how to safely raise a baby.

This, however, I could stand behind. Of course, if it was something that was something you were forced to go to, I wouldn't support that.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

-snip-

-snip-

So what would be a "proper" parent? How would you define that? Kids aren't like cars or guns, there isn't one right way to take care of them.

I'm all for making sure parents don't abuse their kids, but how could you test whether or not the parent is "fit" to raise a child? Its so easy to just say "Oh we should make sure that people who are unfit for parenthood shouldn't be allowed to procreate" but once you get into the details of the whole thing it doesn't stay so clear-cut. Raising a kid is a complex thing, not everyone does it the same and even those who do it similar even up with very different children. And there's nothing to say that the "proper" way to raise kids won't create some screwed up people. People have been trying to raise kids the right way since the first proto-humans, nobody has yet to find the "right" way. If you can come up with the idea of a "fit" parent that is the one way to do things, then sure the whole "child lisense" would work. But until then you aren't really solving the problem.

Plus taking a test on theoritical knowledge is entirely different to actually raising a kid. What's to say that a future parent who thinks they've got it all down pat doesn't crack under the pressure? What's to say that someone looking to have a child can't just keep shut about their plans to treat the kids like shit?

 

[Ghengis John]

You're right, but the problem here is how effective (if at all) would this method be to justify using it?

I agree with you: that is the problem. And unfortunately, I'm not a solutions kind of guy. But I would think we could at least do some kind of interview process or psych eval or something. I mean, no system is perfect but that would at least weed out the blatantly obvious unfit people. I'm not looking to make breeding so impossibly difficult to get approved for that only 5% of the population can do it, but I think even the rabid right-to-breeders in here will admit that there are some people that reeeeeeeeeeeally shouldn't have kids. If we can set something up to determine suitability for firearm ownership, why not child rearing?

It's not up to us to determine who can and can't have children, we have biases, we can be unobjective and this is a major step in people's lives here. At any rate today's moron can actually become tomorrow's great parent. I've seen people under go miraculous changes when they have children, such that probably never would have been possible. I had a friend for instance, his sister was to put it succinctly a problem child, she ran away from home, abused drugs, falsely accused her step father of molestation and was pretty skeezy. She got pregnant, realized she had to turn her life around, got an education in health care, became a nurse and is now a professor of health sciences at riverside university. There is no way on earth any of that would have happened with a program like this one in place.

 

[loip9114]

It takes away everyones most basic freedom from the dawn of time, the freedom to reproduce. No-one has the right to do that, ever.

I don't think there should be a license or standardized test that approves or rejects applicants (seriously, forced sterilization or forced abortions based on things unrelated to parenting sounds like an awful and very elitist world, dude) but sometimes I think all expecting parents should get to attend free state-sponsored classes about how to safely raise a baby.

We have a winner! Education is the way to solve the problem, more often then not any mistakes are due to lack of education, people mightn't have had good or any parents, or never encountered a situation before, the first child is the hardest people always say because you don't know what to expect. Teaching people what to do will fix this.

Definitely agree, very summarizing of what my idea is. But not only parenting should be as free (paid by state) to take course. But also pregnancy should go with it. Pregnancy and parenting are inseperable and both should be went through with a lot of care.

 

[loip9114]

THAT SIR, IS HORRIBLE AND MONSTROUS! THAT IS A TERRIBLE EXTREME AND I REFUSE TO EVEN DEBATE ABOUT IT! Although you did say that was Horrible yourself, so I will let it slide...

Well let's think about it, trying to tackle these things without any leaks in the plan can easily tend to go to the extreme, because the extreme can guarantee more chance of "succes" than the less extreme one. In which we still have a freedom of choice.

 

[Sutter Cane]

I like it. I hate the people who say, "BUT B'AWWWWW, WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS?" Well, I'd like the right not to have to support Crackhead Judy's six babies because getting high is more important. Then there's the fact that when these kids aren't raised like that, they have even less life skills then their parents and they breed. Great, now you all have the right to sit in your own feces because everyone's too god damn stupid to advance society. And please don't tell me this doesn't happen. I work in a job where I deal with these kids constantly. And working in my field means I talk to other people who have done the same thing for decades. They all agree. So yeah, that's anecdotal-but it's a fuck of a lot of anecdotal (I've been doing this awhile). And fuck the first person who brings up that goddamned XKCD cartoon.

Yes! because MY rights are more important than the rights of anyone else!!!!! Forget that controlling your own body is an essential human right, I don't think these people are intelligent enough to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!!

You make me absolutely sick. Entirely absolutely sick. You essentially admit that this would be a gross violation of human rights but you DON'T FUCKING CARE. Would you at least stop to think about the obvious implications of this colossally stupid idea? Specifically that you're advocating that the government is deciding WHO GETS TO BREED?!?!? I could play the nazi card, but I don't have to. You want to go live in an authoritarian state move to North Korea or China, because i'm sure the citizens there are SO well off.

 

[WanderingFool]

Ummm... not sure about anyone else, but I like the idea.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

THAT SIR, IS HORRIBLE AND MONSTROUS! THAT IS A TERRIBLE EXTREME AND I REFUSE TO EVEN DEBATE ABOUT IT! Although you did say that was Horrible yourself, so I will let it slide...

Well let's think about it, trying to tackle these things without any leaks in the plan can easily tend to go to the extreme, because the extreme can guarantee more chance of "succes" than the less extreme one. In which we still have a freedom of choice.

... I'll give you that, but It's still a Monstrous and Horrible extreme regardless.

 

[Zaverexus]

That is is an amazing idea, I've never actually thought about how one would regulate that.
EDIT: Reading further posts I'm less sure. mass neutering of the population is definitely extreme.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Firstly, a law like this could never be enforced unless the state was Orwellian and relatively small. Secondly, even if it could be enforced, passing the test and gaining a license doesn't necessarily mean your a fit parent: It just means you could pass the test, and there will still be millions of bad parents and dead babies. Thirdly, what would you do if they failed or refused to take the test? Are you going to force them to have abortions? What if they refuse that?! Kill them?!

The idea is horrid, and as much as I hate Bad Parents, most parents aren't morons and are capable of taking care of kids. We don't need to taken a freakin' test for something we can do instinctively.

I was going to say the same thing, but since it's already been said, I'll just agree.

 

[Ghengis John]

Also. You can't work on assumptions. It's also true to say that Aids could one day be a cure for an even greater and more deadly virus. Does that mean we should stop trying to find a cure for it?

Well to be fair, the foundation to save acquired immuno deficiency, or S.A.I.D would have an incredibly catchy acronym.

Also, you're ignoring a small fact. The high murder rate and crimminals who create it yadda dadda dadda is really a small percentage of the population. The vast majority of human beings who've been raised sans testing have grown up to be emotionally healthy, fairly functional adults. Even if many, many of them are morons. The same goes for bad parents. The number of parents who abuse crack or let their babies starve while playing WoW is a relatively small number. Horrible? Yes. But does there need to be a law or is that just a reactionary knee-jerk towards the glut of information we now receive.

 

[loip9114]

THAT SIR, IS HORRIBLE AND MONSTROUS! THAT IS A TERRIBLE EXTREME AND I REFUSE TO EVEN DEBATE ABOUT IT! Although you did say that was Horrible yourself, so I will let it slide...

Well let's think about it, trying to tackle these things without any leaks in the plan can easily tend to go to the extreme, because the extreme can guarantee more chance of "succes" than the less extreme one. In which we still have a freedom of choice.

... I'll give you that, but It's still a Monstrous and Horrible extreme regardless.

Yeah, it goes in against all natural laws and ethical ideas. It's like locking all of us up and only let those out to reproduce that are "good" parents.

 

[tzimize]

Firstly, a law like this could never be enforced unless the state was Orwellian and relatively small. Secondly, even if it could be enforced, passing the test and gaining a license doesn't necessarily mean your a fit parent: It just means you could pass the test, and there will still be millions of bad parents and dead babies. Thirdly, what would you do if they failed or refused to take the test? Are you going to force them to have abortions? What if they refuse that?! Kill them?!

The idea is horrid, and as much as I hate Bad Parents, most parents aren't morons and are capable of taking care of kids. We don't need to taken a freakin' test for something we can do instinctively.

The exam also has a demonstration in it, yes you could fake it, but why would most human beings waste that much time to get a child they won't take care of? Also if they refuse to get an abortion then the child will be taken away at birth and they will have to pay a fee for it's upkeep even in another persons home. Kind of like how a divorced parent that got screwed in court needs to pay child support.

I sort of like the idea about how to tackle "illegal" children.

While I too often think to myself "why the hell are these people allowed to have kids?!"...it is pretty...I dont know, narcissistic to believe that mine is the only right way to raise kids. Problem is, how do we agree on an official test? There is no such thing, and there never will be. Consensus would not be reached. So what you are saying is really not as much "people should need to do a test to become parents" as "I should be the one to decide what is the best/only way to raise a child.

Which is a failure right there unfortunately.

Still. My god, there are a lot of stupid parents in the world.