Should You Have to Get a License to Raise Children?

[Blatherscythe]

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?

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.

Beats my idea, fuck the exam.

 

[KnowYourOnion]

I like this idea!
It makes sense, it tackles population control and would probably improve society
hough I feel most people wont see this the same way

 

[wooty]

I wouldnt say that that rule should apply to everybody, but I can see where your coming from with this argument.

My cousin would definately need to get a license if it was up to me, spend more on the kid and less on the bloody weed you tit!

 

[Prof.Wood]

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.

 

[Dags90]

What if the person is illiterate? You don't have to be literate to be a good parent, but it's going to make a test pretty darn hard.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Firstly, a law like this could never be enforced unless the state was Orwellian and relatively small. Secondly, even if it could be enforced, passing the test and gaining a license doesn't necessarily mean your a fit parent: It just means you could pass the test, and there will still be millions of bad parents and dead babies. Thirdly, what would you do if they failed or refused to take the test? Are you going to force them to have abortions? What if they refuse that?! Kill them?!

The idea is horrid, and as much as I hate Bad Parents, most parents aren't morons and are capable of taking care of kids. We don't need to taken a freakin' test for something we can do instinctively.

 

[GeorgW]

I like it, but there are some problems with keeping people from their primal purpose in life. I don't care about human rights, so I'm all for it, but some might see a problem with it. It would help with over-population. And would this apply to all countries?

What if the person is illiterate? You don't have to be literate to be a good parent, but it's going to make a test pretty darn hard.

It doesn't have to be in writing, you could take an oral exam.

 

[Blatherscythe]

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.

I did say I was open to suggestions and it's an exam on parenting, that's a big subject so you would probably study for about 1-2 weeks and write the exam which could possibly be about as long as a final exam maybe even longer.

 

[Mumonk]

Yes!!!!! If your such a horrid person that the bank wouldn't give you a $300,000 dollar loan, or a company wouldn't hire you cause of a sketchy background check, then why should you be able to have 5 kids >_<

The greatest pollution of this world is children.

 

[Fraught]

Yeah, I'd actually be for this. People might say "you can't do this, it's a biological urge to reproduce yadda-yadda-yadda".

Y'know what fucking ELSE is a biological urge? To motherfuckin' survive.

Yeah, shitty parents. Go eat a bag of purple-headed warriors.

And besides, it'd help for population control, and I'm all for population control.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Firstly, a law like this could never be enforced unless the state was Orwellian and relatively small. Secondly, even if it could be enforced, passing the test and gaining a license doesn't necessarily mean your a fit parent: It just means you could pass the test, and there will still be millions of bad parents and dead babies. Thirdly, what would you do if they failed or refused to take the test? Are you going to force them to have abortions? What if they refuse that?! Kill them?!

The idea is horrid, and as much as I hate Bad Parents, most parents aren't morons and are capable of taking care of kids. We don't need to taken a freakin' test for something we can do instinctively.

The exam also has a demonstration in it, yes you could fake it, but why would most human beings waste that much time to get a child they won't take care of? Also if they refuse to get an abortion then the child will be taken away at birth and they will have to pay a fee for it's upkeep even in another persons home. Kind of like how a divorced parent that got screwed in court needs to pay child support.

 

[lettucethesallad]

As much as I dislike bad parents and unruly children, I think this is a bad idea. A test like this fails in its subjectivity. What is good parenting? Apart from the 'obvious feed child, clothe child, take child to doctor if sick', what would the test be based on? Methods of raising children? There are _thousands_ of different methods and philosophies behind raising children. Which one would be taught? Which one is right? Who decides which one is right? Kids are not sprung from a cookie cutter, different methods work differently on different children.

Also, as has been pointed out, what happens if a prospective parent fails? Are they castrated/receive a vasectomy so as they'll never be able to have children, since they've been deemed unfit by society? What about rape victims that are impregnated? What about religious groups that are against abortion?

Or should we do like China have with the one-child policy - let people send in applications to have children, and if they are pregnant without the a-ok from the state, they're fined?

No. Bad people will be bad people, and yes, some kids will be unlucky enough to be born to these individuals. But to make society as a whole go through a test to conceive and do something that's natural and instinctive is rather sickening to me.

 

[TheTaco007]

No. As much as I hate to say it, this is unethical. Yeah, there are hundreds and thousands of people out there who are too f***ing stupid to be parents, but that doesn't mean that the government should be allowed to regulate who can have a child and who can't.

Plus, how the hell would you enforce it? You can't MAKE someone use a condom (which has something like a 2% chance of not working anyway) and you can't MAKE someone take birth control.

 

[DemonicVixen]

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?

Excellent idea.

Only one small issue. All children are different, and everyone has different methods of raising their kids so how would we get people to agree to 1 method only. Baring in mind that not all children respond to the same method as others.
Plus once they have this license, who's to say that once they HAVE the child, they dont start abusing, neglecting or not discipline their child correctly.

 

[PunkyMcGee]

for the most part raising a child is a learning experience. sure they make books on the subject and there is "common sense". but it won't help more than real life interaction, and experience. every parents experience is different. child neglect is a terrible thing i agree but, it's not as common as you make it out to be.

EDIT: DemonicVixen, you ninja'd me.

 

[Blatherscythe]

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?

Excellent idea.

Only one small issue. All children are different, and everyone has different methods of raising their kids so how would we get people to agree to 1 method only. Baring in mind that not all children respond to the same method as others.
Plus once they have this license, who's to say that once they HAVE the child, they dont start abusing, neglecting or not discipline their child correctly.

I like what one poster said, they would also check mental health to see if the parent is likely to do this.

 

[Asturiel]

As many people have stated above me this is a bad idea. Mostly due to practicality and moral issues. A system like this is so easy to abuse or be abused to great detrimental effects on many people that I say without a thorough polish up (i.e. back to the drawing board) something like this would probably be as bad as China's 1 kid policy.

 

[Something Amyss]

I understand the sentiment, but at the same time feel the precedent is too horrific.

 

[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.