Should You Have to Get a License to Raise Children?

[AetherWolf]

AIDS: Nature's population control.
But since humans are fucking selfish bastards who defy nature, then we need this law.

 

[Evilbunny]

In a perfect world maybe but in reality the logistics of it would simply be too hard.

 

[suitepee7]

yes. this idea is actually brilliant. that will be all

 

[Magicman10893]

I like the idea, although not so much as a standardized test. There are many different approaches to raising children with varying rates of success among them. For instance, some parents like to be hard on their kids to teach them that life is hard. Sometimes this works and you get an efficient and productive child and other times you get a rebellious troublemaker or even a depressed child that either becomes violent or suicidal because, "daddy never hugged me."

Instead, there should be a screening process. They put in there application and a computer then does a background check for to test parenting aptitude.

-The computer checks their criminal record. Then the criminal offenses are reviewed and if anything serious (murder, attempted murder, assault, etc.) is found, then they are denied.

-A check of permanent records from school to check things like grades for intelligence and behavior. If the person had a lot of trouble turning in homework or lacked responsibility, they lose "points" overall. Also this check will look for fights that might not appear on a criminal record. If there are a large number of fights, this person is likely to abuse their child.

-A medical check for any hereditary diseases is done to see if there are serious complications for bringing a child into the world. For instance, my father has a family history of heart disease which caused my 30-something year old half sister to have a heart attack after living a very healthy life. If the medical check exposed this, they wouldn't have let him reproduce with anyone.

If the applicant passed the other tests with flying colors, but fails this test, they are given the opportunity to adopt a child. Or if the spouse passes every test, they could find someone that passes this medical check and have the child with them, but have the applicants raise the child. This procedure is already used for couples where one of the would-be-parents is physically unable to reproduce.

-Finally, a drug test for obvious reasons.

Any would be parents would also have to go to a parenting class. A class that covers the basics like how to change diapers and feed the baby and all that fun stuff. I don't this is too harsh and it removes the chance that the applicant would pass the test with lucky guesses.

 

[euro2019]

Bad idea. Sounds like communism! Do you hate freedom? Time for you to eat a guantanamo sandwich!

Just kiddin. Actually i think a licence would be a good idea for many things.


Maybe some classes would suffice, to get the basics down.

Agreed with Danish, but parenting classes already exist haha. If we standardize parenting how would we differ ourselves from others? Everyone would be too alike. I enjoy the company of people who were raised educated because they're different from the rest of the population. Parenting is only one of the many influences that effects who we become in life. Social status, social upbringing, friends, environment, and school all also influence the way we behave and grow up. Our success in life isn't totally pre-determined in life based on how we are raised; it is based on our perseverance, willingness to learn, and of course a lot of luck.

Of course it's given that children with wealthier parents have a higher rate of success in life but I know quite a few med school students for example who came from far lesser means than most and now are very successful. Meanwhile more well off students seem to do less work and end up less successful. It all depends on the person.

 

[CanHasDIY]

In a perfect world maybe but in reality the logistics of it would simply be too hard.

In a perfect world there would be no neglectful parents.

That said, just like drug tests for people on welfare, it's a great idea in theory but ultimately not worth implementing for many reasons... a quick cost/benefit comparison will show that.

A better idea would be to sterilize idiots and criminals to ensure they can't pass their bad genes and habits on to future generations; forced Darwinism, if you will. But again, there are problems - namely, who gets to make the call, and what they base the requirements on.

 

[robot slipper]

I don't think it would be a great idea to have a pre-having-children license for a lot of the reasons people have brought up (particularly enforcing it, deciding what is or isn't the right way to raise children), but compulsary parenting classes for everyone would be a great idea. Everyone would have to go every few months, especially in the early years of a child's life, and there would be some penalty for not attending.

There are some terrible parents out there, and at the moment, social services really need to get better at dealing with them, there is no excuse for what happened to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_P

 

[faspxina]

or a test so hard, that even decent parents would be denied from having a child.

So?

It's not about giving the parents an easy time. Raising children is supposed to be a privilege. If you don't cut it then you have no business raising children in the first place. If your idea of "decent" doesn't cut it then tough shit. It is completely irrelevant...

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

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 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?

 

[Lord Kloo]

@OP
The egg-heads already invented an injectable 'something-or-another' that women can have inserted under their skin so they don't get pregnant for about 3 months or something like that so it can't be too hard to extend this treatment to everyone (not just women there must be something to suppress male testosterone) and so when you pass you're exam you can come off the drug/slip/whatever and have a child if you want one.. or two..

Quote me if I'm wrong but I think there is then a way of enforcing your idea and so half the arguments on this forum are invalid..

(IMPO, please don't flame me.. or eat me)

P.S. - oh yeah they do sometimes cause mood problems but I'm sure we can get over those with some drugs or improvements to the existing drugs..

It's not right that someone else should get to dictate this, though. Inserting a "rod" into the skin of a woman...no, unless she agrees, that's an absolute violation of her human rights.
Also, this thing is a lot more complicated than you think. It has a LOT of other side effects.

No, tampering with someone else's body, without their permission, is absolutely diabolical. What if the woman refuses? Is she imprisoned, so that she physically cannot become pregnant? What if she has a horrible reaction to the chemicals? Is she forced to keep it in, regardless?

No, it's been said before, it's a great idea on paper, TERRIBLE in practice. Again, why should one person dictate what the criteria is for you to meet so that you can have a child? How can you apply one test to every parent and child, when EVERY child is unique?

Sorry, but forced medication is a horrendous idea.

hmm, you are right about the medication issue it does have quite a few side effects, I'm sure they can be ironed out in time.

However, the argument is not about the child and so saying every child is different doesn't add to the argument, a child can only become what it learns to be we humans have some basic and universe needs by default but everything else is created through nurture. Besides the exam wouldn't be HOW to raise your child, it would just be to test the basics and make sure you know how to handle them, that you can handle them (mentally and physically) and you WILL handle them, they are too many people who just have children and ignore or abuse them.

IMO - I don't personally agree with this kind of scheme as it encroaches on human rights and causes pain, but it is for the greater good and it might be necessary in the future as an ultimatum to some people who just won't raise their children well and 'properly'. In the mean time it isn't much of an issue in Western countries and so its not necessary as its only a small minority who abuse the system..

 

[Agayek]

I kinda like the idea in the abstraction, but I simply can't support it in application. The government should have absolutely no say in whether or not someone has children.

Instead of that, what we really should do is just stop the environmental conservation bullshit and let humanity kill itself, then it won't be an issue for anyone.

 

[faspxina]

The question is in the title, we sometimes hear about terrible fucking parents neglecting their child (usually for Facebook it would seem) and the child dies. The license I was thinking of is earned when the parent passes an exam on parenting and can demonstrate good parenting skills, then they can have a child with someone who also has this license. Now if by some odd chance someone has a baby and doesen't have this license then it will be taken by social services and will be returned when the parent obtains the license, or they'll give it to someone capable of raising the child if the parent-to-be refuses to get a license. So what are your thoughts, suggestions, is it a good or bad idea?

1 problem. Licenses do not a parent make. Just like there are plenty of bad drivers out there with legally obtained licenses, there will also be horribad parents with licenses. It in no way shape or form guarantees a good parent, but adds a level of paperwork the otherwise average good parent will have to navigate through to make a baby. And it won't stop people from pro-creating. And humanitarian wise you cannot take someone's right to reproduce away. SO, in essence, it will be a bigger hassle and accomplish little more than putting more money in the government's pocket that they can blow on things we'll never see or hear about.

I don't mean to pick on you, but can we change 'parent' to 'gun owner' in your post and see how many people would shit themselves in horror? I mean, how irresponsible right? Well, why is it more irresponsible to own a gun than to bring a human being into the world?

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 )

 

[A random person]

Licensing? No, it would be easy to abuse and hard to make a good criteria for (it would either exclude many good potential parents or be so basic it lets bad parents in by virtue of knowing babies drink milk).

Tough child services? Now that I'm more for; it avoids the pitfalls of potential parent screening, but should take care of rudimentary abuse, along with things that slip by like having your kids in a harmful religious group (i.e crippling your daughters education, not using medicine or proper vaccinations).

Either way, I'd support parenting classes for expecting couples.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

I like this, but you could only use 2 in extreme cases, every person has some ancestor with some genetic problems. I know of some cases (my aunt) to whom this should definitely be applied, she had a VERY serious, always genetically transmitted heart condition and both her kids needed surgery before they were even a year old.

And I agree on this whole test, especially in poverty-stricken areas, everyone has 5 kids and no money! Everyone! It is horrible and adds to the poverty and pollution like nothing else.

I'm quite pleased to see the general response I've gotten in this thread. I was expecting tons of people calling me little Hitler or something.

Yea. I wouldn't say every genetic disorder should be a definite no. But something like Huntingtons chorea or what you said you're aunt had. Well it's just unfair to pass it on knowingly as far as I can see.

Within 3-4 generations I'd think most serious genetic disorders would be mostly eradicated. eugenics may seem deplorable on the surface. And active eugenics is certainly cruel. But passive, such as denying certain disabilities and diseases to be passed on. Well I can see no downside.

We would just have to monitor what would be considered a disability or disease. Racism could quite easily slip it's unwanted face into the mix.

No, the world is over-populated and there are many freak stories that come about because people are selfish or stupid. Not to mention the above poverty example, I see a lady with a baby begging on the street, the next year it is two babies, and the next three. It is selfish, stupid, harsh on the children, the parents don't have the finances to take care of the children and struggle too. This also screws with the labour laws, and can make a crime filled society.

Then there are genetic disorders, inbreeding, children doomed to die before they hit 30. My friend knows a girl who, due to serious hereditary disease, should have died last year and is not doing too well now, and she is only eighteen. After you see this sort of thing, it is hard to wonder why no such programs have been implemented already.

But yes, extreme political care would have to be taken, and the laws regarding who qualifies for the permit and who doesn't would have to be very well made, preferably NOT on a nation to nation basis, but with WORLD agreement.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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.

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.

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.

 

[cocoadog]

Yes. I am sick of crack babies.

 

[Rhiehn]

Absolutely not. As many stupid people as there are, requiring a license for something harmless to outside parties seems as if it's in the distant but visible vicinity of fascism

 

[badgersprite]

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.