Should being a parent be something that should be licensed?

[redmarvel]

You may not intend to be a parent, but sometimes circumstances get out of your control. Learning to be a parent may also help you deal with other infantile people

 

[Majic Walrus]

I'm 36 year old; military retired and a father of two; one boy 9 and one girl 4. So if your basing you critique of my opinion on that i'm not a parent, and have no idea of what parenting entails, then you're sadly mistaken.

The point of me starting this thread is that parenting is one of the most, if not the most important jobs in the world; it's the foundation of what we grow up to be as adults. With a job so important, why is there so little invested into it, by way of education, BEFORE we become parents?

Are you a good parent?

How much government sponsored education did you have?

 

[AlteredEgo]

Rather than insisting on licensing parents - schools should be training kids on how to one day be better parents. Mind you, I also think first aid classes should be mandatory in high school - and taken for 1 week every year. Then again, basic automotive maintenance is also a must. Finally, everyone should learn how to dance and to give a good massage - but that's just my opinion.

Redmarvel for president!

 

[Addendum]

You may not intend to be a parent, but sometimes circumstances get out of your control. Learning to be a parent may also help you deal with other infantile people

No circumstances have ever "gotten out of my control". As for "infantile people", it's easy to fake polite.

 

[redmarvel]

Redmarvel for president!

Prime Minister - though frankly I wouldn't want the job. Let Arnie be Prez (though heaven only knows why he wants to do it).

 

[redmarvel]

No circumstances have ever "gotten out of my control". As for "infantile people", it's easy to fake polite.

hmmm... considering that I've had two different relatives tell me that I'm the official guardian they've picked for their kids... which could actually have me end up parenting 9 kids if the absolute worst were to happen... I still go with my first answer.

 

[Addendum]

My relatives have their brother or sister to be guardians if anything should happen. And if asked to be one, I would say no.

 

[Kelly]

Whenever i see or hear of about achild being abused because their parent/s were straight f- ups, drug addicts, psychopaths,etc it really makes me wonder why being a parent isn't something that should be licensed by law. We license just about every import tasks we have to perform as a society; what's more important that having a background check, and being taught how to be a parent before you actually qualify to be one?

Now i know ppl will start screaming about their rights, blah, blah, blah .....but just think of all the children, who will later become adults, that will be raised by stable, sane individuals, as oppose to those that fall prey in abusive, horrid households and they themselves either grow up f'd up and continue the cycle, or worst, end up criminals and such...is it really such a bad idea?

Discuss.

What test are they going to pass in order to get their parent license?

What criteria are you going to use to tell whether a parent or parents are stable, sane individuals?

What if one parent passes the test, but the other doesn't?

What if neither passes the test?

 

[Golgo-13]

Are you a good parent?

How much government sponsored education did you have?

Yes.

None.

But that was just the luck of the draw that my kids were born into a family of stable, capable humans beings. For every one good parenting household, thier a bad one and the only real victims in all these cases are the children, yet everyone's yelling about their rights, and how they'll feel about it.

Something this import shouldn't be a crap shoot.

To be quite frank, i couldn't give a damn about ppl feeling that the government has too much control over this or that in this situation, if it means just one less child is born addicted to crack and doesn't have to suffer the pains of withdrawal symptoms; or if one less child isn't dumped in a dumpster full of roaches and rats simply because it's parents didn't want it; or if one less child is sexually molested and/or beaten routinely 'cause his/her parents are drunken good for nothing bums. If it means just a handful of children actually get a fighting chance coming into this already cruel world, then i'm all for giving up some of my rights.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Yes.

None.

But that was just the luck of the draw that my kids were born into a family of stable, capable humans beings. For every one good parenting household, thier a bad one and the only real victims in all these cases are the children, yet everyone's yelling about their rights, and how they'll feel about it.

Something this import shouldn't be a crap shoot.

To be quite frank, i couldn't give a damn about ppl feeling that the government has too much control over this or that in this situation, if it means just one less child is born addicted to crack and doesn't have to suffer the pains of withdrawal symptoms; or if one less child isn't dumped in a dumpster full of roaches and rats simply because it's parents didn't want it; or if one less child is sexually molested and/or beaten routinely 'cause his/her parents are drunken good for nothing bums. If it means just a handful of children actually get a fighting chance coming into this already cruel world, then i'm all for giving up some of my rights.

You really think that your kids being raised well was luck? Or was it because you're a good parent.

But we aren't talking about victims that are children, because the children don't exist yet.

 

[Lighthouse]

As much as I think people need to stop having so many children, government enforcement of this just isn't possible.

 

[Silvermoth]

Rather than insisting on licensing parents - schools should be training kids on how to one day be better parents. Mind you, I also think first aid classes should be mandatory in high school - and taken for 1 week every year.

Don't you think teachers are being asked to do too much these days. There's only so much about the world teachers can educate on and the rest should be the parents or I suppose the relevant religious figurehead. Parents should parent, teachers teach. At the end of the day, it's not a teachers job to raise someone else's children.

 

[Kelly]

Most schools do have Family and Parenting classes, and majority of high school students take these classes.

 

[Addendum]

When I was in high school, it was called "Home Ec" and was an elective. I took shop class. Power tools are more exciting than baking.

 

[Mystirious]

Such a system is clearly wide open for abuse. Preventing alcoholics, child molesters and bigots from having children? I won't shed any tears over that. But the government having control over who gets to have children...that sems like far too much power to put in any one person or group's hands.

And power, as the cliche tells us, corrupts.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No cuz there are unconventional parents that do a good job and conventional parents that do a bad job.

Just because you pass a written test doesn't mean you'll be a good parent.

 

[Anubis]

There's soooo many thing wrong with this idea.

I mean, first of all, you gotta take into account that most pregnancies are pretty much accidents. Very few people sit down and say, lets have kids. It's mostly, an oops situation. So, what? Do they have to take the test before they accidentally have a kid? When they start prenatal care maybe? If they fail, then what? They have the baby, then you take it away and do what now? Put it up for adoption or in the foster care system? And we all just know that those are the perfect institutions. I mean, kids never get locked in basements and are fed just enough to survive so the foster parents can continue to collect that fat check every month. If the same people running the Foster care system is running this cockamamie program, those kids are probably better off with the crack ****e mom. And I'm not even gonna bring up the s**t storm forced abortions would cause. Like somebody already said, this is totally some Nazi s**t right here. Imagine the disproportionate amount of minority's who will lose their children because they don't fit the majority's view of what a proper parent should be.

Not to mention the money this would take. The incredible financial drain. Who's gonna pay for all these kids? Where they go? Who feeds them? If you actually do Steralize, whose gonna pay for that s**t?

Then, and this is most important, there really is no test that can determine who will be a good parent. No matter what, it is a crap shoot. You can have the money, the mental stability, the family values, and your kid will still grow up to perform sex acts in alley ways for crack money. Flip it around, and that son of a crack ****e could grow up to be a well adjusted person. You just don't know man.

It's just waaaay too much of an injustice. Would cause far more problems than it helps, and ultimately, would lead the country to ruin. Cuz people are apathetic about a lot of things, but you start talking about taking away their right to reproduce, and you got yourself a revolution on your hands.

 

[Addendum]

Couldn't there be a tradein though? This "right to reproduce" doesn't really benefit me

 

[bell110]

Yes.

None.

But that was just the luck of the draw that my kids were born into a family of stable, capable humans beings. For every one good parenting household, thier a bad one and the only real victims in all these cases are the children, yet everyone's yelling about their rights, and how they'll feel about it.

Something this import shouldn't be a crap shoot.

To be quite frank, i couldn't give a damn about ppl feeling that the government has too much control over this or that in this situation, if it means just one less child is born addicted to crack and doesn't have to suffer the pains of withdrawal symptoms; or if one less child isn't dumped in a dumpster full of roaches and rats simply because it's parents didn't want it; or if one less child is sexually molested and/or beaten routinely 'cause his/her parents are drunken good for nothing bums. If it means just a handful of children actually get a fighting chance coming into this already cruel world, then i'm all for giving up some of my rights.

Well, YOU might think you are a good parent, but what if I'M in charge and I find you are not fit to be a parent? Would you be okay with that and just let me take your kids?

How would you even enforce something like this? Sterilize everybody at puberty? Regulate sex? Mandatory abortions? Put the kids into an orphanage? Execute anybody deemed unfit and just get them out of the gene pool?

Regulating who can procreate is like regulating who can eat or who can take a ****. It's a basic function that all organisms share.

 

[Golgo-13]

Why does everybody think this is about the right to have sex; have ppl ever heard of birth control? Ppl can and will bang each other brains out; it's been going on since the beginning of time. My whole thing is the child rearing. From birth to 18. Take sex out of the equation for a minute;

Why do we have to be screened in order to adopted kids? There are so many kids in the system that need homes that we can basically just give away, why don't we just give them to whoever wants them, kinda like going to the store and picking out a puppy? Why, because we need to make sure that the parents are suitable to begin with.

This is just a hypothetical thing guys, and i know that it will be all hell to police, enforce and whatnot but i had to throw it out there. From a logical stand point alot more should and can be done to prevent children from being abused in this country BEFORE it happens, yet as it stands right now, it seems to be an after though . The Child Protective Services in the country are a joke.

 

[katie_girl09]

When I was in high school, it was called "Home Ec" and was an elective. I took shop class. Power tools are more exciting than baking.

You can't eat that cabinet you made, buddy. So I beg to differ.

Such a system is clearly wide open for abuse. Preventing alcoholics, child molesters and bigots from having children? I won't shed any tears over that. But the government having control over who gets to have children...that sems like far too much power to put in any one person or group's hands.

And power, as the cliche tells us, corrupts.

I'm completely with you about everything except bigots. Might be controversial but even that's going too far if you ask me. If they aren't killing/hurting people, why can't they have their beliefs and still have children?

 

[Wylie Times]

An overly simplistic answer to a complex problem.

 

[Golgo-13]

^ I'm with you on that one katie_girl09. I hate those hate groups and their beliefs, but if they're providing a sound and stable NON-VIOLENT environment for their children, then so be it.

 

[Wylie Times]

^ I'm with you on that one katie_girl09. I hate those hate groups and their beliefs, but if they're providing a sound and stable NON-VIOLENT environment for their children, then so be it.

But how healthy can that environment be for a child if they're teaching them to hate others at a very early age. Conditioning a child to hate passionately could lead to that child becoming violent.

 

[katie_girl09]

But how healthy can that environment be for a child if they're teaching them to hate others at a very early age. Conditioning a child to hate passionately could lead to that child becoming violent.

Just because you teach someone to do something, doesn't mean they are going to do it.

You can't stop people from having children just because they don't have the same beliefs as the majority.