Should being a parent be something that should be licensed?

[Wylie Times]

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

Which is why I said it could lead to that child becoming violent. It is possible to condition a child to be violent against others or themselves.

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

I never said that should be the case. I simply questioned how a childs environment can be healthy if people are instilling hate for others in them at an early age.

 

[JStorm]

Every City needs a ditch digger. Every town needs a gas station attendant. Every village needs an idiot.

Some people shouldn't have kids - and some people should. A license will not prevent stupid and stupider having sex and - possibly - creating a great person, or possibly not.

We can not be the judge of whom lives or dies, all for the sake of ignorant breeding.

I went to school with kids who were absolute **** ups, both parents respected, well off, and good people. I also went to school with kids who were fantastic, went on to graduate college, now having a career and stable, all of which was encouraged by getting the hell away from their parents.

My point - had a law been enforced, which set of parents do you think would have been restricted?

There is a story for every chance, and an ideal for every process. Fifteen years ago, my parents would have told you I would be dead or in jail by now. The way I acted did not directly reflect upon their parenting - I was a **** up. However, the way I am now reflects on how much they loved me and wanted for me NOT to be dead or in jail.

30 years old and proud of my parents for sticking it out. My arse should have been horse whipped every morning. . just for thinking of half the **** I got into.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

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;

You can't exclude intercourse from the discussion. There is no form of birth control that is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.

 

[Majic Walrus]

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.

Let's cut to the quick. Life, the world, can be a scary place and a lot of things we think are ****** can happen. But you don't prevent your child from possibly getting mugged by aborting it pre-birth. You also don't prevent a child from being influenced by the outside world by not introducing it.

Sure both of those things have the maximum affect and that will achieve your goals but it's waaaay overkill.

Life is risky business. That's the way it's supposed to be.

 

[katie_girl09]

Which is why I said it could lead to that child becoming violent. It is possible to condition a child to be violent against others or themselves.

Yes. Could. So until the child starts displaying violent tendencies no one has any right to stop them from having children.

I never said that should be the case. I simply questioned how a childs environment can be healthy if people are instilling hate for others in them at an early age.

But that is exactly what the government would be doing by instituting such a thing. Years ago, for example, racism was the norm. It wasn't considered a bad thing at all. It is only nowadays that it is considered unhealthy in any way. My argument is that if the government stops racists from having children (even when they are not violent), they are taking away a human freedom from a group because they don't conform to the majority. It's dangerous.

The bottom line is that you can be a successful and normal person and still be a bigot.

 

[Wylie Times]

Let's cut to the quick. Life, the world, can be a scary place and a lot of things we think are ****** can happen. But you don't prevent your child from possibly getting mugged by aborting it pre-birth. You also don't prevent a child from being influenced by the outside world by not introducing it.

Sure both of those things have the maximum affect and that will achieve your goals but it's waaaay overkill.

Life is risky business. That's the way it's supposed to be.

I agree with all of that. I'm NOT in favor limiting who can and can't have children. I just questioned how healthy an environment is for a kid if they're being taught to hate people.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Wow this is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, and truly one of the most frightening as well.

Giving government the power to dictate who can and cannot have children? Talk about a major assault upon personal freedoms.

It is completely wrong to set standards on who can and cannot have children. While it might sound good in theory, to prevent bad parents from having children, it is easily corrupted, not easily enforcible, completely morally wrong and injust, and is a major slippery slope. Something like this is the type of government control that can destroy societies.

Fact of the matter is, as someone stated earlier, the world is a scary place. Bad stuff happens. And you know what? That's just the way it is. It is the nature of the world, it is the nature of life. It is a shame that there are children out there who aren't even going to have a chance, but it's the way things are. That's how the world works.

By regulating who can and cannot have children, you really are taking a problem and making it tons worse.

 

[Mystirious]

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.

For a country that calls itself the Land of the Free it never ceases to amuse me how quickly so many of you seem to be willing to surrender your rights

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?

But they are hurting people. Even if they are non-violent in their beliefs, preaching hatred and intolerance does untold mental and emotional damage to those they target.

So for one thing they would be warping their children, making them bitter and hateful and cruel inside just like they are. And the children, thus broken, would then go on to continue their parents hatred and intolerance, doing harm to untold numbers of people.

But as I have said, while I personally do not want any of the aformentioned groups of people raising children, I would vehemently oppose any government iniative to control who is allowed to have children, simply because it is far too dangerous a situation. Deciding who has the right to breed is far too akin to Nazi Germany for me to be comfortable with the idea

 

[Addendum]

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

I know that. Which is why I have a microwave to warm up food.

Besides, ovens can't fire blocks of wood like a table saw can t:

 

[Addendum]

Sure both of those things have the maximum affect and that will achieve your goals but it's waaaay overkill.

There is no overkill. There is only "Open fire" and "I need to reload"

 

[Franklin Richards]

There is already a passive / tacet license that parents have. If you start ****ing up and Child Services finds out about it, then they will take the kids from you. No test is going to keep idiots from abusing kids. Just like announced drug tests, the perp will just get clean for the test.

 

[SuperFerret]

Let's be honest. Even if this did happen, there'd be crappy parents. Look at how many good drivers there are out there compared to the number of people who are licensed to drive.

 

[The Battousai]

Since my point seems to have gone well over your head, I will.

It hasn't.

The Nuremberg laws had articles which prohibited marriage and sexual intercourse (it specifically stated sex) between Germans and Jews. Telling people who they cannot marry and who they cannot have sex with is a form of selective breeding.

Yes, but that's not the issue here.

If a country were to institute a license to have children,

I don't agree with a literal "license" being involved.

it would be a form of selective breeding, by preventing people who would be "bad parents" from having children. The only difference between this and the Nazis would be what it's based on, racial characteristics vs "good parent" characteristics.

You don't think that's a BIG difference?

Race has nothing to do with one's ability to raise children (that idea was based on the unethical concept of eugenics and "genetic purity" associated with the Aryan ideal looked up to by the Nazis). Culture, however, has a significant impact on how parenting is done, and can shape a person's way of parenting easily as it is passed on from generation to generation. This is not to say that cultural differences should be used against people, but I wanted to make this aspect clear so that my next point is more clear.

Good parenting is a complex issue. It involves a great deal of variables that aren't easily diagrammed out and understood. Therefore, one would expect to need a very thorough and well-researched line of study should be responsible for ascertaining the qualities that best exemplify what a good parent is. This would need to take various things into consideration such as culture, income, living situation, stability, etc.

I would personally prefer that education standards would include classes (or at least mini-courses) on this topic that seriously delve into the topic and ensure the students learn everything they need to know in order to be a better parent; no matter what background they came from.

Of course, this isn't an easy task. It requires more than many teachers are willing to do for their students, and highlights the serious deficiencies of the current standards for teachers' employment.

You jokingly say they should be sterilized if they failed. The Nazis actually did sterilize people. If you don't believe me, check out Life and Death in the Third Reich by Peter Fritzsche.

I know that - that's why it was a joke.

In fact, many people in the US were sterilized as ruled by courts in many southern states (as well as others) in the first part of the 20th century due to the rising interest in eugenics. Thanks to a limited, paltry understanding of genetics at the time, the interest was rather wide-spread for a while. This concept, of course, was what fueled the same ideas in Germany in the coming years; particularly with Hitler, who ran with the idea once he gained power.

To attribute these things to what I'm talking about above is about as ludicrous and inane as it gets.

 

[Golgo-13]

For a country that calls itself the Land of the Free it never ceases to amuse me how quickly so many of you seem to be willing to surrender your rights

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?

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?

The same kind of screening that applies to ppl who are trying to adopt kids is quite reasonable.

 

[Addendum]

Speak for yourself

 

[Scourge2099]

I just have one response to this thread :

 

[Spider-Vader]

Yes, yes & yes. So many kids' lives would be better, if they didn't have deadbeat parents.

 

[Majic Walrus]

It hasn't.



Yes, but that's not the issue here.



I don't agree with a literal "license" being involved.



You don't think that's a BIG difference?

Race has nothing to do with one's ability to raise children (that idea was based on the unethical concept of eugenics and "genetic purity" associated with the Aryan ideal looked up to by the Nazis). Culture, however, has a significant impact on how parenting is done, and can shape a person's way of parenting easily as it is passed on from generation to generation. This is not to say that cultural differences should be used against people, but I wanted to make this aspect clear so that my next point is more clear.

Good parenting is a complex issue. It involves a great deal of variables that aren't easily diagrammed out and understood. Therefore, one would expect to need a very thorough and well-researched line of study should be responsible for ascertaining the qualities that best exemplify what a good parent is. This would need to take various things into consideration such as culture, income, living situation, stability, etc.

I would personally prefer that education standards would include classes (or at least mini-courses) on this topic that seriously delve into the topic and ensure the students learn everything they need to know in order to be a better parent; no matter what background they came from.

Of course, this isn't an easy task. It requires more than many teachers are willing to do for their students, and highlights the serious deficiencies of the current standards for teachers' employment.



I know that - that's why it was a joke.

In fact, many people in the US were sterilized as ruled by courts in many southern states (as well as others) in the first part of the 20th century due to the rising interest in eugenics. Thanks to a limited, paltry understanding of genetics at the time, the interest was rather wide-spread for a while. This concept, of course, was what fueled the same ideas in Germany in the coming years; particularly with Hitler, who ran with the idea once he gained power.

To attribute these things to what I'm talking about above is about as ludicrous and inane as it gets.

So do you propose we look at factual things like income, education, and criminal background? Because unfortunately minorities statistically have lower levels of education, lower income, and a larger criminal record...

Furthermore when you talk about implementing education... Well Social Services do this at the very first sign of parenting issue. So really we could say that most people who need education on parenting are getting it... Forcing more education only causes those who don't need it to be required to submit to education.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

You don't think that's a BIG difference?

Race has nothing to do with one's ability to raise children (that idea was based on the unethical concept of eugenics and "genetic purity" associated with the Aryan ideal looked up to by the Nazis). Culture, however, has a significant impact on how parenting is done, and can shape a person's way of parenting easily as it is passed on from generation to generation. This is not to say that cultural differences should be used against people, but I wanted to make this aspect clear so that my next point is more clear.

Good parenting is a complex issue. It involves a great deal of variables that aren't easily diagrammed out and understood. Therefore, one would expect to need a very thorough and well-researched line of study should be responsible for ascertaining the qualities that best exemplify what a good parent is. This would need to take various things into consideration such as culture, income, living situation, stability, etc.

I would personally prefer that education standards would include classes (or at least mini-courses) on this topic that seriously delve into the topic and ensure the students learn everything they need to know in order to be a better parent; no matter what background they came from.

Of course, this isn't an easy task. It requires more than many teachers are willing to do for their students, and highlights the serious deficiencies of the current standards for teachers' employment.

I never denied it was a big difference. My point is that saying people who are "capable of being good parents" is a form of selective breeding. Just as saying only people of a certain race can have children with their own race, just as the Nazis attempted. The motivations for such are obviously different, but I don't believe you can ever justify selective breeding. It is something far too totalitarian. Not to mention how whether or not it's possible for so many different groups to agree on objective qualities necessary for raising children.

I'm not trying to bring race into the issue of being good parents. There are stupid people of every race, religion, ethnicity, creed, culture, etc. The same is true for smart people capable of being good parents.

I'm obviously referring to a scenario where people are rigorously tested and given written authorization such as a license to have children. I'm in favor of having mandatory classes in public school that teach students how to raise children. It'd probably do more good than drug education.

 

[The Battousai]

So do you propose we look at factual things like income, education, and criminal background? Because unfortunately minorities statistically have lower levels of education, lower income, and a larger criminal record...

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.

Furthermore when you talk about implementing education... Well Social Services do this at the very first sign of parenting issue. So really we could say that most people who need education on parenting are getting it... Forcing more education only causes those who don't need it to be required to submit to education.

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

 

[The Battousai]

selective breeding

What's your definition of this phrase?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

What's your definition of this phrase?

Restricting who is able to have children and with whom based on certain characteristics.

 

[AndThePickles]

Honestly, with as much as you have to go through just to adopt an animal from a shelter, you'd think that there would be some sort of test you had to pass to have a child

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

So if we start "liscenising" people to be able to have children, where is the line drawn?

Why don't we start selecting who can marry who, in the name of the children's lives? Or telling people where they can and can't live, so that children have a better chance at having an environment that benefits them.

You all are missing the point here. We can't allow government, or any other entity to dictate our lives to such a level. If we do, we are giving up the right to live a free life, to live our own lives. If you are okay with an authoritive entity having the power to tell you how to live your life to such levels, then move to Cuba, or China or someplace else.

It's a shame, yes, but children being born into broken homes, and bad environments, it's a natural part of life, and I'd agree, a needed part of life. You can't have good without bad, and bad **** happens, and unfortunately, some people are stuck in piss poor situations.

But that doesn't make it neccessary - nor okay - to start allowing some kind of government entity to dictate how we can and cannot live our lives.

We as a society can do what we can to help - we can have Social Services that help remove children from bad situations, we can set up charitable organizations that help out children that are in bad situations, but we cannot allow ourselves to set up legislation that basically allows our freedoms to be taken away to try to stop the situation.

"Those who would give up personal freedoms in the name of safety deserve neither"

I am a strong proponent of this quote - tho I realize this isn't the full and complete quote it is enough for people to know what I am talking about.

Having x-ray scanners at the airport to make sure someone didn't strap a bomb to their nuts isn't giving up personal freedoms, it certainly isn't the same level that we are talking here. It is an inconvenience that someone might see a digital version of your boobs. It is not an invasion of personal freedoms the way liscensing who can and can't have children is. And it is one that, as a freedom loving American citizen, I cannot condone.

 

[Great Pretender]

Here's the thing, though.... You can adopt an animal. That's it...
But with children... If you need a license and you get pregnant, then what? Do they abort the baby simply because you can't get a license? Or do they take the baby away and put it up for adoption?
I mean, maybe if we're talking about some futuristic, without a license you can't physically get pregnant at all. Either way, it's an issue that we're far, far, far, far away from reaching.