Should You Have to Get a License to Raise Children?

[teebeeohh]

yeah, great idea but i have something even better: we deliberately poison the air with something that will only kill humans and you have to buy a license to breathe that gets more and more expansive after lets say your 65th birthday. So we have taken care of illegal immigration, unwanted children, aging society, people having more children than they can take care of, it's fucking brilliant.

Fuck you, no seriously fuck you. That would kill everyone, there's no fucking point to it. It's just a bullshit idea to try and make mine look similair to it when there is none. So fuck off.

as i said, my idea is even better than yours, since it solves all kind of problems and not just bad parenting...
actually this was rather aimed at those people who suggested making everyone sterile till they proved they can handle a child, it's the exact same mindset

 

[Ih8pkmn]

I think the idea of having a license for children is an ungood idea. Granted, it would probably bring down teen pregnancy rates if it was suddenly against the law to have a child without a legal document, but this idea strikes me as double, nay, tripleplusungood.

But if the people were given some kind of class or test on how to parent your child, and took a different class or test for each stage of their child's life, I think that would be a gooder idea.

 

[Mcupobob]

First off, eliminates a basic right. Not a idea or "Freedom" that our societies are build on but a right that is given by nature a basic instinct one that humanity hasn't overcome and prolly never will. Second how would you enforce it? It would require ironical a lot of manpower.

 

[Burningsok]

Blah it's pointless. Who's to say they will obey. Some of you here just sound communistic, I'm sorry. A license isn't gonna turn someone into a goody-two-shoes that follows the rules. Look at drivers licenses. It means that the person is CAPABLE of being a good driver, not that the person is going to be a good driver.

 

[Danpascooch]

For those of you saying "HEWMAN WITEZ!!!!", what about the rights of the abused?

People will be abused, that is a fact, and I don't think this test would lower it much, because most abuse isn't born of pure ignorance (which is what would be tested), but rather malice, or lack of motivation to care for the child.

Even if it tested for all three, no. Parents shouldn't need to go through this shit for the relatively small percentage of children who are abused, yes it sucks that they are abused, but no system is perfect, and I think it's more important to preserve our basic rights.

Actually i've been told that that's not true at ALL. We spent an entire period on this in my psych class, and that was the exact opposite of what my psych professor (whao has worked as a therapist) told the class. He said the real reason that abuse can be such a problem is that from a parent's perspective it looks like it works. He told us that much of the time abusive parents don't originally intend to hit their kids, and initially resist the option but once they give in, it becomes an easier and easier fallback option to just hit the kid because it gets him to stop. He also told us that the majority of abusers that are forced to go through education never abuse again

First of all, what you said about it being an "easier fallback option" kind of supports my point that one of the main reasons is not ignorance, but lack of motivation to care for the child properly.

Secondly, there is a lurking variable in that statistic about the education. How do you know that they stopped because of the education itself, and not because they got caught, and knew they would be under close scrutiny from then on and have the book thrown at them if they are caught again?

 

[StBishop]

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.

Although I take issue with your general argument I take issue with the bolded statement in particular.
I know a couple people who got in to alot of fights as kids and then shock horror gre up after highschool.

I was expelled from a high school for geting into fights [footnote]No I'm not going in to detail on a public forum[/footnote] and plenty of the teachers regreted seeing me leave because I was generally liked and the other guy involved was a smart arse. However I was in the wrong and I learned from my mistake as a child.

I choose not to regret my actions but I regret any impact they had on the other guy, I'm not sure if he cares any more but a couple people were upset by the whole thing, both sets of parents inluded and I wish I could take all of that back.

Anyway the point I'm getting at is even at that age I would never have abused, mentally, physically or in any other way a young child and I resent the implication that you think I'm unfit to be a father.

Although I'm sure you didn't mean to say: "Hey, you there. I think you'd be a shitty dad and abuse your kid."
It's pretty much what you said.

So thanks for that.

Please don't do it again.

 

[Magicman10893]

Although I take issue with your general argument I take issue with the bolded statement in particular.
I know a couple people who got in to alot of fights as kids and then shock horror gre up after highschool.

I was expelled from a high school for geting into fights [footnote]No I'm not going in to detail on a public forum[/footnote] and plenty of the teachers regreted seeing me leave because I was generally liked and the other guy involved was a smart arse. However I was in the wrong and I learned from my mistake as a child.

I choose not to regret my actions but I regret any impact they had on the other guy, I'm not sure if he cares any more but a couple people were upset by the whole thing, both sets of parents inluded and I wish I could take all of that back.

Anyway the point I'm getting at is even at that age I would never have abused, mentally, physically or in any other way a young child and I resent the implication that you think I'm unfit to be a father.

Although I'm sure you didn't mean to say: "Hey, you there. I think you'd be a shitty dad and abuse your kid."
It's pretty much what you said.

So thanks for that.

Please don't do it again.

I apologize for that generalization as I am certain a lot of people would grow up after high school. My point was that it might show a history of violence. But that isn't to say that there couldn't be an appeal procedure for that. And besides, this wasn't really meant to be taken seriously because this is just the rough draft of a plan that would most likely never exist outside of country going through severe population problems. Again, I apologize and I didn't mean to offend.

 

[StBishop]

I apologize for that generalization as I am certain a lot of people would grow up after high school. My point was that it might show a history of violence. But that isn't to say that there couldn't be an appeal procedure for that. And besides, this wasn't really meant to be taken seriously because this is just the rough draft of a plan that would most likely never exist outside of country going through severe population problems. Again, I apologize and I didn't mean to offend.

Thanks for taking the time to apologise.

 

[Jaker the Baker]

And by extension, you don't care about the children suffering and dying due to these imbecile parents. Because enforcing some goddamned standars that parents have to fulfill would be "ugly" according to you. *facepalm*

Why does the government need to be over my shoulder my entire life? Humanity made it THIS far without stupid laws like this, it'll be just fine without them later on. I have PLENTY of friends with awful parents, who don't get caught for child abuse because they lie to authorities about what goes on within the household. It happens now, and it'll happen then.

Do licenses take bad drivers off of the road? No, I deal with them every damn day.
This wouldn't work, plain and simple.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Why does the government need to be over my shoulder my entire life? Humanity made it THIS far without stupid laws like this, it'll be just fine without them later on.

"Fine"?

Just because humanity still exists it doesn't mean that it "made it" without som significant sacrifices. And in the case of children, completely unnecessary sacrifices and suffering.

Children deserve better than the crappy world of crappyness that you offer them by making it a "human right" for every incompetent imbecile to have ownership over a child.

I have PLENTY of friends with awful parents, who don't get caught for child abuse because they lie to authorities about what goes on within the household. It happens now, and it'll happen then.

But will it happen as frequently?

Also, if you had to take tests and exams before you had children then "lying" wouldn't help you fly under the radar. Either the results show that you have an adequate degree of competence or it doesn't.

Do licenses take bad drivers off of the road? No, I deal with them every damn day.
This wouldn't work, plain and simple.

Would we have a shitload of more bad drivers on the road if we didn't have the practice of demanding that people have to take a license before they are eligeble to drive?. HELL YES!

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

First off, eliminates a basic right. Not a idea or "Freedom" that our societies are build on but a right that is given by nature a basic instinct one that humanity hasn't overcome and prolly never will. Second how would you enforce it? It would require ironical a lot of manpower.

Nature doesn't give "rights"". It is incapable of "giving rights", and there is no such thing as a "basic right".

Rights are arbitrary inventions of humans, they can be given and taken away just as easily. Nature however doesn't deal in "rights".

 

[thirion1850]

No.

1. There's no practical way to enforce it. What are you going to do to parents who have a child but no license? Force the mother to have an abortion? Take the child away? Okay, great, so what do you do with the children you take away?

2. Parenting is an experience. You can read all of the books and watch all of the DVDs ever produced on the subject and still be a novice. Most of the things about parenthood you learn as you go along.

3. The test could never be objective. What if one of the questions demands (hypothetically) that parents teach children that homosexuality is evil, when the parents disagree? To answer honestly - no, they'd teach their kids to be open-minded - would lose them the right to reproduce. Would you like to be told how to raise your children?

4. For that matter, what would the grading system be? Pass at 50%? 65% Okay, which questions did they get wrong? The ones on feeding, clothing? The ones on education? Does that mean a parent who got 100% is somehow 'better' than a parent who only got 70%?

5. If the test is a standard test, everybody is going to know what the correct answers are. There would even be books on the subject. Does that make you a good parent, or good at taking tests? For example, I aced my GCSE German exam, but I can't actually speak a word of the language and wasn't interested in ever doing so.

6. What about couples who want to adopt? Should there be different tests for adopting a young child, a teenager?

7. There's a horrific situation in China at the moment with their "one child only" policy - thousands of female children being killed in favour of having a male child instead.

I love that people in support of this license cite a tiny, tiny minority of society. What about all of those parents out there doing a great job? Where's the credit for them? Oh no, all parents are idiots, moving along.

(Also, I might add, there have been a lot of great people in history who came from shitty families - Abraham Lincoln, Charles Dickens, Charlie Chaplin. Alternatively, there are children who came from lovely families who are revolting - Paris Hilton was given everything and in return is wasting her life (does that make her parents bad parents or good parents?) or as a personal example, I have an uncle who was loved and nurtured and given all he wanted by his parents, and turned out to be a lech and a borderline paedophile. *shrugs*)

This pretty much won the thread. Said better than I ever could.

 

[latenightapplepie]

Hmm, I don't think so, it sounds like a bit too much government involvement for my liking. I mean, I hate that some children suffer so much under terrible parents, but I'm really not so sure about this.

 

[Krylock]

Good idea chap. We're slowly turning into China, so why not?