Should You Have to Get a License to Raise Children?

[Negatempest]

I understand and approve the idea, just the method is a bit....flawed at the moment. See I am a shining example of what you would describe as typical emo boy/spoiled piece of **** kid in high school, but a now respectable and lovable adult (this happened around the age of 21-ish). So if the test looked at my homework score at high school, which in my own opinion looking at ANYONE's high school record to prove how good a person is regardless of how good they performed is just a really bad idea. I have known people who have completely changed from who they were in high school to who they are now in both extremes of good and bad. Like I said, idea good just need a really good method.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Take it a step further. Remove peoples ability to conceive until they get a licence allowing them to have kids. That way there wouldn't be thousands of kids in orphanages because their dipshit parents forgot about contraception and neglected to apply for a licence when they got preggo.

I'm curious as to how you would do that? I mean, short of issuing mandatory vasectomies and tubal ligations that would be reversed on the completion of the course, I don't see how that would work.

That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking.

Maybe find a slightly more reliable way. As I'm not sure vasectomies are a 100% reversible.

But I'm thinking when they reach a suitable age, they must report to a hospital for sterilisation and when they have a licence to have children they have it reversed. Permanently. Like the licence allows them to have as many children as they choose.

Depending on how it's done, vasectomies/tubal ligations are largely reversable, barring any unwarrented complications.

But beyond that, it seem a bit Orwellian to force someone to undergo a surgery. Yes, I know it fits with the whole topic of the thread, but forcing people to do this could potentially give rise to backstreet reversal surgeries, which would only cost lives due to infection and unsanitary conditions.

 

[elvor0]

Yes, most definitely, it would also be a good way of controlling the population and improving our gene pool which both ultimately help towards a generally nicer planet.

Controling the population in Developed countries is not needed, in fact, if we are not careful, the birth rate will drop so low that we condom ourselves to extinction (Haha, a pun).
In the UK, the population would be dropping if it was not for immigration.
Africa, Asia and South America? They are the ones who are multiplying like rabbits.

Personally I'm of the opinion that the world is already over populated.

I wouldn't say that was so much of an opinion, more fact. I'm pretty sure it's true given we must be at about 6.5 billion by now.

It's not quite a fact at the moment since our planet can sustain our population. But it is getting to that point

Righteo, just heard a few years back in science class that the planet idealy could sustatain X population and we were over that, I think he was taking stuff like the amount of resources we have left in relation to the amount of people there. Fuck it, I don't know about this stuff ><

 

[Sutter Cane]

Righteo, just heard a few years back in science class that the planet idealy could sustatain X population and we were over that, I think he was taking stuff like the amount of resources we have left in relation to the amount of people there. Fuck it, I don't know about this stuff ><

Understandable. Malthusian/neo-Malthusian theory is a bit confusing (at least to me)

 

[faspxina]

I don't think it's much of a privilege as much as it is a natural instinct.

It is a natural instinct to kill other human beings too, but you don't see us allowing anyone to kill another person for whatever reason.

Just because something is a natural instinct it doesn't make it right.

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said, but my point was that procreating isn't a privilege (yet).

This would only be understandable if it were applied as an emergency population control act. But even so, as some have mentioned here, how do you even test someone's parenting?

The world is already in need of emergency population control acts, since it is over-populated as it is, and it gets steadily worse.

Also, how do you ask parenting you ask? Well for one thing, good parenting doesn't exactly go hand in hand with being an addicted drug fiend or having put yourself in serious financial debts that you can't even afford to pay off among other things. Yet these imbeciles are permitted to raise children by the single virtue that they actually squeezed them out into the world.

That is a fucked up practice, no matter how you look at it.

Yes, forbidding drug addicts from having a child is the simplest answer to prevent "crack babies", but, even if we're able to remove drug addicts and poor people out of the equation, there is still a large group of potential bad parents that will be able to pass that test.

The only reasonable way I can see, is to let someone raise a child and see if it turned out a good person in the end. If the child is abused during the process, social service must intervene and take the child away. Don't we already have that?

Social services have an abhorrently bad track record when it comes to intervention and actually preventing children from coming to harm due to bad parenting, so no we aren't doing that now as adequately as we should. And even in the cases where social services has intervened, the damage has for the most part already been done.

That's why it would be better for the entire society to put a stop to this before it can even begin by disqualifying people from parenting who have no business trying to raise children in the first place.

If Social Service isn't capable of tracking down every single bad parent, will it do a better job monitoring everyone who has a child?

You make some strong points, but this method wouldn't work in today's society.

 

[Sutter Cane]

Thank you. That's why I asked you to go look at my other posts in this thread. I do not advocate some omnipotent government monster passing out multiple choice tests and sterilizing those who fail. I am fully aware of the slippery-slope possibilities of heading down this route. But I still think this is a conversation that needs to be had.

To summarize what I've been saying, I think it's perfectly appropriate to have someone go through some sort of interview/screening process to weed out the blatant whack-jobs. And even then, don't sterilize them or anything so dramatic. Educate them. And I'm thinking of education in a more psychological 'this is how you doing x could harm your child'-I know people who are baffled that their child can't speak at the age of five when they never actually speak to the child themselves-not a 'Does baby eat milk, cat food, or nails?' type schoolroom thing. Almost everything we do in today's society has some sort of screening process-driving, gun ownership, getting a job, owning a home...but not creating and caring for human life. I can't drive without the government's consent, but I can create, distort, and destroy another person's world on a whim?

Ok that clears a bit up. I just went a bit blind with anger when you seemed to be making an argument against human rights. Honestly though if this is the kind o thing you're looking for I think it would be much better if instead of requiring a license or special mandatory classes you just have the schools add on a child care class to the list of required classes in high school. Sure people drop out, but then you avoid the messier issues of your proposal

 

[PunkyMcGee]

In an idealistic society only the genetically perfect would be allowed to raise children.

As soon as you start putting any limits whatsoever on who can breed you start on the slope towards that.
I say let social Darwinism continue running its course for now.

However, to control overpopulation (by far the biggest problem), I maintain there should be a one child per person limit. When your child is born, you declare if it is born for you or your partner. So one couple can have two children but if the father remarries he can only have one more with any new partners he has.

It would mean that the population could not increase. How it would be enforced, however, I don't know.

since when is overpopulation a problem is the western world?

The high population of the western world and the expected high standard of living is causing repercussions the world over.
There's homelessness and poverty over here too.

that may or may not be true be true but the fact remains that putting a limit on children is never going to fly (in the US anyway). also the financial problem is not do to the population it's do to greed, (the rich get richer am i right). and if what you say is true the overpopulation problem will fix itself do to famine and illness (that's dark i know but that's how nature works).

 

[Malyc]

How would to enforce this? couldn't you just hide your child, also how long is this exam as some people just get tired of looking after children and snap due to stress resulting in the death of the child.

... Then those people should never have had a goddamn kid in the first place. This kind of logic explains why so many people die through stupidity.

 

[tomtom94]

In an idealistic society only the genetically perfect would be allowed to raise children.

As soon as you start putting any limits whatsoever on who can breed you start on the slope towards that.
I say let social Darwinism continue running its course for now.

However, to control overpopulation (by far the biggest problem), I maintain there should be a one child per person limit. When your child is born, you declare if it is born for you or your partner. So one couple can have two children but if the father remarries he can only have one more with any new partners he has.

It would mean that the population could not increase. How it would be enforced, however, I don't know.

since when is overpopulation a problem is the western world?

The high population of the western world and the expected high standard of living is causing repercussions the world over.
There's homelessness and poverty over here too.

that may or may not be true be true but the fact remains that putting a limit on children is never going to fly (in the US anyway). also the financial problem is not do to the population it's do to greed, (the rich get richer am i right). and if what you say is true the overpopulation problem will fix itself do to famine and illness (that's dark i know but that's how nature works).

The other problem is we have a higher life expectancy, and with advances in medicine and welfare hunger and illness don't tend to kill many over here :/

 

[Malyc]

In an idealistic society only the genetically perfect would be allowed to raise children.

As soon as you start putting any limits whatsoever on who can breed you start on the slope towards that.
I say let social Darwinism continue running its course for now.

However, to control overpopulation (by far the biggest problem), I maintain there should be a one child per person limit. When your child is born, you declare if it is born for you or your partner. So one couple can have two children but if the father remarries he can only have one more with any new partners he has.

It would mean that the population could not increase. How it would be enforced, however, I don't know.

since when is overpopulation a problem is the western world?

The high population of the western world and the expected high standard of living is causing repercussions the world over.
There's homelessness and poverty over here too.

that may or may not be true be true but the fact remains that putting a limit on children is never going to fly (in the US anyway). also the financial problem is not do to the population it's do to greed, (the rich get richer am i right). and if what you say is true the overpopulation problem will fix itself do to famine and illness (that's dark i know but that's how nature works).

The rich may get richer, but that was because they were smart enough to save their money. I'll be damned if I'm going to feel good about the government using my hard earned money to give to people who don't want to get a job. I work for my money, and I pay my taxes.

Also, greed is the main driver of the society we have today. If there was no greed, no one would be able to go to the restaurant and buy a hamburger. The restaurants exist because someone thought "hmmm, people need to eat, so if i made them food, and they paid for it, i could be able to live on the income."

 

[RicoADF]

Actually i've been told that that's not true at ALL. We spent an entire period on this in my psych class, and that was the exact opposite of what my psych professor (whao has worked as a therapist) told the class. He said the real reason that abuse can be such a problem is that from a parent's perspective it looks like it works. He told us that much of the time abusive parents don't originally intend to hit their kids, and initially resist the option but once they give in, it becomes an easier and easier fallback option to just hit the kid because it gets him to stop. He also told us that the majority of abusers that are forced to go through education never abuse again

Wait are you saying spanking a child is wrong? Best thing my father ever did was give me a smack on the butt when I did something wrong, probably the only thing he's ever done right.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I like the idea in theory, but I don't think it would work because of some fanatic bringing God into the matter o.o

 

[Sutter Cane]

Wait are you saying spanking a child is wrong? Best thing my father ever did was give me a smack on the butt when I did something wrong, probably the only thing he's ever done right.

No, not at all, but there is a point where is does become abuse.

 

[PunkyMcGee]

In an idealistic society only the genetically perfect would be allowed to raise children.

As soon as you start putting any limits whatsoever on who can breed you start on the slope towards that.
I say let social Darwinism continue running its course for now.

However, to control overpopulation (by far the biggest problem), I maintain there should be a one child per person limit. When your child is born, you declare if it is born for you or your partner. So one couple can have two children but if the father remarries he can only have one more with any new partners he has.

It would mean that the population could not increase. How it would be enforced, however, I don't know.

since when is overpopulation a problem is the western world?

The high population of the western world and the expected high standard of living is causing repercussions the world over.
There's homelessness and poverty over here too.

that may or may not be true be true but the fact remains that putting a limit on children is never going to fly (in the US anyway). also the financial problem is not do to the population it's do to greed, (the rich get richer am i right). and if what you say is true the overpopulation problem will fix itself do to famine and illness (that's dark i know but that's how nature works).

The other problem is we have a higher life expectancy, and with advances in medicine and welfare hunger and illness don't tend to kill many over here :/

OK i'll give you the hunger issue is fixed by programs like the WIC (i think that's what it's called). and the medicine is great if you can afford it, thanks to a terrible healthcare system (one again for the US). a good example of that is i broke my hand last April and my insurance dropped me, i'm still paying it off.

PS. i apologize for the lateness of my previous post, but it's my mom's birthday so i spent the day with her.

 

[Ramin 123]

Fuck yes. A million times yes.

Take it a step further. Remove peoples ability to conceive until they get a licence allowing them to have kids. That way there wouldn't be thousands of kids in orphanages because their dipshit parents forgot about contraception and neglected to apply for a licence when they got preggo.

I've said this for a while.

You need to prove you're worthy to have children. And people need to stop using them as barganing tools to scam money out of the government. It's not fair on the kid and it's not fair on those of us who pay taxes.

As for what the test for licensing should involve.

1)First of all a medical. Asses the chances of whether or not you're likely to drop dead and leave the kid whilst they're too young to look after themselves.

2)Find out whether or not you have a history of genetic/heredity disease and whether you're likely to pass that on to a child.

3)A mental capability test. No so much intelligence. But find out whether or not the person is likely to neglect or abuse the child. Or simply whether they can handle parenthood.

4)And finally. Financial. It's not fair to the child or the state if you're going to require constant money to support a child. If you can't provide a decent standard of living yourself. Then you should not bring a child into the world.

These may sound like harsh, even Orwellian demands. But I think they're paramount to an evolved and civilised society and the sooner we work towards this kind of system the better.

And... this, if you study closer, is exactly what Orwell was talking about in 1984...seriously this is ridiculous. Who the hell are you or anyone to say who is and who isn't worthy to be a parent? I get your stance with taxes and stuff but I mean come on, how much more analysis and screening does the UK/US need?

And your screening process is completely stupid and regardless of how much you can research into someone's history, humans inevitably will get diseases of all sorts. You've got some Sparta mindset or something...

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

As much as I would like to say "Yes" I know that it is neither humane (to an extent) nor would it work. It would be taking away one of the most instinctual, perhaps the most instinctual, thing that a human (animal) can do. To put a law on having kids just makes me feel like the Government is becoming more and more like some sort of freaky, controlling 1984-esque monster. Having to have a "Children Lisence" would be incredibly over-the-top and a terrible thing for the Government to do.

Furthermore it would not work, how would this be regulated? What about countries that don't have the law? Surely they would soon massively outpopulate the countries in which the law is in effect. If would be almost impossible to introduce it to 3rd World Countires which already have a massive population and are filled with poverty, it would wreck havok and the Government would have no way of controlling it effectively.

I think that the Government should spend more time on things that matter, and yes I know that this is a very important issue, but putting it into effect would waste years and years of the Governments time, and the law obviously wouldn't be put in effect for years to come.

It honestly just does not seem right, there have always been stupid/ignorant people in History, I don't think that putting in this law will change anything dramatically, as well as the fact that it impedes on the most free and natural animal instinct to have - to reproduce.

Also I don't know how effective it would be, take for instance the woman who accidentally let here baby drown while she was on Facebook playing Cafe World. She probably would've easily passed that test, she thought she would be a great mother, she looked after he child, however she made a mistake and because of that her baby drowned. That test would not have a made a difference for her.
Even an incompetent Mother or Father who takes this test, and fails, can retake it again and again until they get it right. It isn't going to change their attitude to raising a child that much.

Yes I agree that it is terrible when you see stupid people, and it's terrible when you realise that they're probably going to have children. But denying them the right to have children (until they pass a Government made test) just isn't the right thing to do, it's denying the most basic right. I hope to God that this law never happens.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

-snip-

There is no one proper way. But there is a way to test for different things. Morality for example. If you think one minority or another are lesser human beings are are vile you shouldn't be allowed to breed. If you think that the poor should be arrested for being poor you shouldn't be allowed to breed. If you think that the ill should be denied medical treatment because they can't afford it you shouldn't be able to breed. Stuff like that.

If you believe that certain people shouldn't be allowed to breed, you shouldn't be allowed to breed...

I get your point though. If someone is some sort of sociopath, letting them raise a kid is obviously not a good idea. But I also don't like the idea of not allowing people to raise kids based on their personal views. While I'm not saying that it would be out of hand right off the bat, but it could quickly turn into a means to control people's beliefs. If a group in power wants to quash opposing views, just keep certain people from breeding. Either they change their views and are then allowed to breed, or they don't and take their views to the grave. And once again, this assumes that the people will stay the way they are once they have kids or that something that might cause a problem in the future will definitely turn up with a test.

snip

Since you snipped me, I'm not sure which post of mine you've quoted. Had you read my post number 187? Surely something as simple as an interview is not so ludicrous? Of course there is no ONE way to properly raise a child; I think you'd agree that there are plenty of wrong ways to do so. Why would it be so wrong to find out who doesn't have any idea of what the fuck to do with a child, and maybe educate them?

-snip-

I just still can't fathom how people are perfectly fine with the idea that we should make sure people are qualified to handle inanimate objects, but not to create and form a human being. I still say the latter causes more societal damage than the former.

Now you I can agree more with. You obviously aren't for some ham-fisted way of doing this. I'm all for parents learning how to take care of kids. Educating those who don't know enough would definitely help lower accidental abuse. But I don't believe that it will eliminate purposeful abuse. It will stop the obvious psychos from gaining their own little torture pets, but it won't stop people from changing down the line and eventually becoming abusive. I'll admit though that your idea of having an interview with prospective parents to make sure they at least have an idea of what they're doing is good.

Oh and I started typing my response before your post #187, so I didn't see it until after I was done. I was just responding to your first quote of me.

To all who read my post, don't think that I'm dismissing this idea on principle. It's more along the lines of the practicality of it. Making sure that parents know what they're doing is definitely a good idea and as we mature as a society we should make sure that people take a little responsibility for the lives in their hands. I just don't think that forcing people to have a license is the best idea. I'll admit though that I don't know the seemingly best course of action though, I'm just hesitant towards an idea I see as bad.

 

[SkyeNeko]

I dunno, I feel like i am unqualified to answer this because im not against mass sterilization (and the breeding of the few) and im not fond of anything below a couple years old.

needless to say, im all in favor of licensing.

EDIT: after reading a few more posts (that ninja'd me) i should say that yes i am willing to be sterilized, yes i am willing to be told i cannot have children, and yes i am going to adopt kids irl.

 

[Nanaki316]

I can understand where you're coming from. I get so sick of reading about people in the newspapers who have 20 kids to get the nice big council house or the babies that die due to neglect.

However, I don't agree. If you wrote down everything about me on paper, I would look like a hideous fucking parent. I dropped out of school at 15, I had two violent boyfriends, I cut myself for about 8 years, have seen 7 different psychiatrists in that time, and have been on various different meds for mental illnesses.

I fell pregnant at 16 (don't start yelling at me about contraception as we were BOTH using it) and my daughter is the best thing that ever happened to me. I'm now 22 and have 2 girls but I still have various mental health issues. I love my children more than I could possibly say and I would die for them. I would never harm a hair on either of their heads. I would sooner die than have anyone take my children away from me.