• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Should being a parent be something that should be licensed?

Those are important to understand for purposes of gathering information for research, and thus better inform those being educated in schools/by parents. After all, the best way to solve a problem is to get to the source.

Maybe I haven't been clear. I'm talking about bettering education earlier on in schooling and continuing on afterwards.

I could only see this practically as a needed addition to sexual education and perhaps part of home economics type classes. In reality though it would have to be an elective class and as such would probably not be taken very seriously in a lot of places.

I'd much rather have smarter kids that can read, write, count, and continue learning on their own than trying to make them into "good parents."
 
We surrendered alot of our rights post 9-11. Ppl hoo'ed and ha'ed about it at first, but at the end of the day we all settled down and learned to accept it in the name of saving lives; in the name of the bigger picture. How is saving children's lives any different?

No. Some weak and foolish people "Settled down" and meekly accepted it. Those who still posses even a modicum of self respect are still rightfully ****ed off about the way that the American government has forced it's citizens to surrender their rights with fascist nonsense like the Patriot Act

The way that American's surrendered so many of their rights due to ridiculous post 9-11 paranoia and ignorance is not something to be proud of. And it is the primary reason I am very glad not to live in America nor would I ever willingly live in America.

I am very glad you compared this idea of "Liscensing" parents to the things that the evil and corrupt Bush administration perpetuated during it's "Reign of Error" as it just goes to show what a bad idea it is.
 
Restricting who is able to have children

When those restrictions are intended to improve the conditions for raising a child, "selective breeding" doesn't really fit.

and with whom based on certain characteristics.

Interesting - I don't think I've seen anyone here suggest such a thing.

Clearly the comparison you were drawing is not accurate.
 
I could only see this practically as a needed addition to sexual education and perhaps part of home economics type classes. In reality though it would have to be an elective class and as such would probably not be taken very seriously in a lot of places.

I'd much rather have smarter kids that can read, write, count, and continue learning on their own than trying to make them into "good parents."

Is both not an option to you? Maybe I'm just not that cynical :o
 
Well, the world would be a better place if crack ****es, 16 year olds, Scizophernics (There was a story about a scizo mother who mutiliated her baby) could't have kids....

So yes, but don't too china-isk with the rules, just make sure kids don't grow up to be dead
 
When those restrictions are intended to improve the conditions for raising a child, "selective breeding" doesn't really fit.

And who decides what "Conditions" are ideal for the child? Who would you be willing to trust such a decision to?

Because, speaking only for myself I can't think of a single, solitary individual, living or dead, whom I would trust with that power
 
And who decides what "Conditions" are ideal for the child? Who would you be willing to trust such a decision to?

Because, speaking only for myself I can't think of a single, solitary individual, living or dead, whom I would trust with that power

Quite frankly, I am the only person ever, past or present, dead or alive, that is qualified to determine what is best for anyone, anywhere.

So in conclussion, I should be trusted with the task of making such decisions.
 
And also, i'd like to point out something that's, been lost in all this debate. What about the future porn stars? I mean seriously, if it weren't for the creepy step dads, or the uncles with boundary issues, there would be no porn. Think about the future generations. :o
 
When those restrictions are intended to improve the conditions for raising a child, "selective breeding" doesn't really fit.
You're choosing who can have children and who can't. That is selective breeding. No government should have the power to determine who can have children even if the end results (better conditions for children) are desirable. You cannot trust any government with that amount of power.

Interesting - I don't think I've seen anyone here suggest such a thing.

Clearly the comparison you were drawing is not accurate.
Depends on if both parents have to be approved or only one. If both, then yes, you would be restricted as to who you could have children with. You couldn't choose someone who was deemed a "unfit parent material."


I get the feeling we're mostly arguing semantics :huh:
 
Last edited:
And who decides what "Conditions" are ideal for the child? Who would you be willing to trust such a decision to?

Because, speaking only for myself I can't think of a single, solitary individual, living or dead, whom I would trust with that power

I'm not naive - I don't expect such a decision to be left to one person or even a few. The conditions should be agreed upon by experts in the appropriate fields and screened by ethics committees, at the very least.
 
I'm not naive - I don't expect such a decision to be left to one person or even a few. The conditions should be agreed upon by experts in the appropriate fields and screened by ethics committees, at the very least.

You're still naive in thinking that by giving a particular group that much power, that anything positive will ever happen.
 
I certainly wish there was some way to license people to be parents, but there just isn't a viable way to legislate this. In the end, it'll likely be worse for kids than better.

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.

I'd have to agree with this. Part of the problem today is people not taking responsibility for their actions and then trying to pass that responsibility on to someone else. And then of course they blame that someone else when something goes wrong. Could there be more in the relative Health/Human Growth classes and such, sure, but I can't imagine many kids would take it seriously.

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. ......

I had to respond to this...you'd be surprised how many people actually do sit down and say "Ok, let's try and have kids." Me and my wife actually did just that. IF we had gotten pregnant prior to that then oh well, but we wanted to wait till we both had our lives in order first...if possible.

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.

I think this is probably the most important thing to keep in mind. Who exactly is going to determine what makes a good parent and what doesn't? Who is going to be able to tell what a child is going to grow up to be? There's no way to do this. You have kids that grow up to be great, kind, humble, amazing people that have come from horrible a homelife. And the opposite of course. You have kids that have grown up to be great people that came from near poverty stricken status. And some real horrible people that have come from well-to-do families. You simply cannot determine any of this by the parents.

You can't simply remove sex from the equation. People are going to have sex. It's something that has to be addressed if you're planning on legislating this. Specifically, how do you deal with those that get pregnant without a "license" or in spite of being rejected by the system to have children? Are the pregnancies aborted? Are the children ripped from their parent's arms and thrown into the foster care system? As system which is already flawed and overflowing? I don't think either of those are going to sit well with many people, even if it's got the underlying intention of "for the children."

Kids also have a way of changing people. People that you wouldn't normally think would be good parents, or that you would never see as a parent, can become the best parents once they actually hold that child in their hands for the first time.

I'm not naive - I don't expect such a decision to be left to one person or even a few. The conditions should be agreed upon by experts in the appropriate fields and screened by ethics committees, at the very least.

I think it's naive to expect that a fair and appropriate group of experts would actually be assembled. That those people wouldn't be influenced by some organization, belief system, or whatnot. There is always going to be some bias on how you should raise your child. I'm an atheist. I wouldn't be surprised if a religious belief wouldn't be constituted in these rules in some way. What about spanking or grounding? The majority of "experts" out there today shun those practices. I grew up getting grounded, getting my car taken away or video games, getting a smack on the butt occasionally, etc. Those sorts of things may be "outlawed" or that basis of thought may invalidate my application to have children. What if I fake it through the test and then do that stuff later? Do you rip the child away from his home?

There's just no way to do this.
 
Last edited:
I'm not naive - I don't expect such a decision to be left to one person or even a few. The conditions should be agreed upon by experts in the appropriate fields and screened by ethics committees, at the very least.

I would not trust either "Experts" (Whatever on earth THAT is meant to mean) or ethics committee's (Ethics. What a hollow and illusory concept) on such matters. And regardless of what they agreed upon I would not let them control my right to reproduce. They could take my child from my cold dead hands.

Trusting such a decision to anyone is the mark of a deeply foolish individual.
 
You're still naive in thinking that by giving a particular group that much power, that anything positive will ever happen.

Sure - assume that I would want no checks and balances involved :awesome:

I would not trust either "Experts" (Whatever on earth THAT is meant to mean) or ethics committee's (Ethics. What a hollow and illusory concept) on such matters. And regardless of what they agreed upon I would not let them control my right to reproduce. They could take my child from my cold dead hands.

Trusting such a decision to anyone is the mark of a deeply foolish individual.

Oh - so you're making my argument into something completely different in order to use an appeal to emotion in response. How reasonable.
 
I think it's naive to expect that a fair and appropriate group of experts would actually be assembled. That those people wouldn't be influenced by some organization, belief system, or whatnot. There is always going to be some bias on how you should raise your child. I'm an atheist. I wouldn't be surprised if a religious belief wouldn't be constituted in these rules in some way. What about spanking or grounding? The majority of "experts" out there today shun those practices. I grew up getting grounded, getting my car taken away or video games, getting a smack on the butt occasionally, etc. Those sorts of things may be "outlawed" or that basis of thought may invalidate my application to have children. What if I fake it through the test and then do that stuff later? Do you rip the child away from his home?

There's just no way to do this.

Correction: there's no practical way in the current environment in this country to do this without some issues arising. I understand this. This is why I'm more interested in education standards being improved ( an interest in acquiring knowledge would be nice to start with, but then again, parents who discourage learning aren't exactly helping...).
 
If there were any way to enforce this, it would have happened already.
 
Oh - so you're making my argument into something completely different in order to use an appeal to emotion in response. How reasonable.

Not my intention at all. I am merely stating that I do not care what "Experts" or "Ethics commitee's" were involved. I would still be opposed to anyone deciding who can and cannot have children
 
Not my intention at all. I am merely stating that I do not care what "Experts" or "Ethics commitee's" were involved. I would still be opposed to anyone deciding who can and cannot have children

It appears this is where I may have dropped the ball. I don't intend on this, either.

I only care about who is raising children (my motivation for wanting better parents out there).
 
This is a terrible idea!
First of all, There are varying spectrums of what child abuse is. Who should we please?
Second of all, tests mean nothing. There could be someone that passes the test, but has a secret Sadistic and/or Pedophilic side no one sees.Plus it's no secret what most people would consider "good parenting" it's not hard for someone to lie and cheat.
Third of all, is it right to force a woman to carry a baby for 9 months and then forcibily take it from her becuase of some buerocrat's desicion that she will abuse her baby?
Fourth of all, Forced sterilization/abortion doesn't work with the first admendment. It's against some religions. The same negates the "Use birth control" arguement.
Fifth, it's Naziesque.
 
Last edited:
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.

So stop making Calculus and Algebra mandatory - I have never once needed to use the Pythagorean theorum since high school.

Frankly I'd rather have folks with a college / university education telling kids how to be better parents than have folks without one attempting to do it. Parents today do not have the support system they had 100 years ago - when communities would help teach children.
 
Last edited:
It appears this is where I may have dropped the ball. I don't intend on this, either.

I only care about who is raising children (my motivation for wanting better parents out there).

I would not want anyone controlling who raises children either. No matter how many "Experts" they had
 
I would not want anyone controlling who raises children either. No matter how many "Experts" they had

Do you have an actual reason for this?

And why do you keep putting quotation marks around "experts"? Are you Glenn Beck or Bill O' Reilly in disguise? :funny:
 
I think it's nice in theory, but doesn't/wouldn't work in reality.

I've got a cousin who definitely shouldn't have kids, but every few years when he wants to get back involved with our family he's there with a new fiancee and baby (or at least "baby on board") in tow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"