Should You Have to Get a License to Raise Children?

[Kakashi on crack]

In theory, this is a great idea. It's a wonderfully splendid idea that basically is a government-funded version of a home education class that is for any age group.

In practice, the test would have to deal with very neutral subjects, I.E. about child care not morals and such, and the license would probably cost a ton of money. They would have to also actually run a class and not just have a license if they did this, because otherwise there would be no point in the license.


The one thing that pisses me off though is that everyone is convinced bad parents are bad parents from the begining. That's not always the case, and IMO is Bulls***. My dad was (at least from my perspective) a good parent for nearly 15 years before his condition started to worsen and he began making bad decisions.

 

[SpiralDots]

It would be far too difficult to enforce, especially since it's not something you can predict - a large amount of pregnencies aren't planned.

What would be a good idea though is having compulsary classes while still at school that teach you to learn how to be a good parent - it wouldn't be that hard, you just include it in the sex-ed classes (after all if they're teaching you about sex, they should teach you how to deal with the consequences) and that way you know that most people will at least know the basics and be semi-prepared for a child.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Take it a step further. Remove peoples ability to conceive until they get a licence allowing them to have kids. That way there wouldn't be thousands of kids in orphanages because their dipshit parents forgot about contraception and neglected to apply for a licence when they got preggo.

I'm curious as to how you would do that? I mean, short of issuing mandatory vasectomies and tubal ligations that would be reversed on the completion of the course, I don't see how that would work.

 

[stone0042]

I think that it's great in theory, but would fall on it's face in practice. It would be highly difficult to enforce, and people, in general, would be very against it. There would inevitably be huge protests.

 

[Girl With One Eye]

It would never work, if someone got pregnant you can't force them to have an abortion or put the child up for adoption.

 

[imnot]

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

agreed, Who needs kids anyway

 

[Woodsey]

No.

It's a human right to have children, you shouldn't need to take a test for it - I can't even imagine what you'd test them on or how you'd carry it out anyway.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

It's a wonderful idea, though how exactly to test if someone would make a capable parent seems a bit difficult, kind of like George Carlin's notion of a light bulb that only shines on things worth looking at. If there was some kind of magickal 'test-all' for this kind of thing, like the Jedi 'midi-chlorian' thing where we could prick someone's finger and -poof- have an accurate assessment of their capacity for maturity, patience, love, loyalty, compassion, creative thinking etc etc etc, I'd be all for it, providing it was universally applied, respected and enforced.

 

[Raregolddragon]

Make it where only effects humans that brake the law. Like anyone that has commented a felony, make them take a massive amounts of test.

 

[The Night Shade]

Yes because some people are not qualified to deal with children

 

[Irridium]

You need a license to drive.

But that doesn't stop idiots from driving.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Horrible idea. Come back when you don't take away basic human rights.

You can't test parenting, each child is different and each parent is different. Just because you can pass an exam doesn't mean you'll be a good parent. Also all of this.

Spoiler: Spoilered for space

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*)

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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?

What age would this license be available? 18 or the legal sex age? What about teen pregancies being cared for by the parents who are license holders. How hard/long will this test be? It could deny a child parents even if they are perfectly fine. What are the critera. Can you REALLY tell if someone is going to be careless with a kid by any kind of test. I challenge you to identify that kind of person through regular testing, im not sure the people who do these things think they would do them, but then they just happen.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

My husband actually came up with the idea of (temporary yet manditory) sterility treatments and each person having the right to have 3/4 of a child. Here's where it makes sense: Two people come together and can combine their rights to get one and a half children.

What's with the half child? Well the couple can sell the half child "title" at some point and use that money any way they want; preferably to help support the child they have. Families who already have one child and have the resources to raise another can buy another couple's half child "title" and have two kids of their own. There'd have to be a strict system in place to ensure couples don't go from one agency to another selling the "title" again and again as some people go from one doctor to another for multiple drug prescriptions.

Now in order to have the first child at all, there would be classes and exams and a trial period where the couple has to raise a doll (or perhaps a midget actor) to see if they have the mental and emotional commitment to back up a good score.

He explained it pretty good and I was mostly paying attention, but I'm sure some things were forgotten somewhere along the way.

EDIT: The sterility treatment would come as an injection every so often. Something that can be mixed into a vitamin shot, a flu shot, whatever that would benefit the patient and easy tot rack when it's time for another one.

 

[Drejer43]

it would be impossible to enforce, but it would maybe makes a lot of things better.
Some people shouldn't have kids that is for sure

 

[Flamezdudes]

I'm not sure really, it's a very controversial topic indeed. Some people just don't deserve to have kids but some of them we don't know until it's too late. What exactly do we have to base it on, whether a person can have a child or not? Will they have be made surgically made in-capable to have children, or have their children taken away from them at birth? Should this be based on wealth?

It's quite a risky topic to discuss indeed, i'm not sure where I stand on it personally.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

"Sorry, you scored a 68, you need at least a 70 to be able to perform the miracle of life."

 

[Brandon237]

Fuck yes. A million times yes.

Take it a step further. Remove peoples ability to conceive until they get a licence allowing them to have kids. That way there wouldn't be thousands of kids in orphanages because their dipshit parents forgot about contraception and neglected to apply for a licence when they got preggo.

I've said this for a while.

You need to prove you're worthy to have children. And people need to stop using them as barganing tools to scam money out of the government. It's not fair on the kid and it's not fair on those of us who pay taxes.

As for what the test for licensing should involve.

1)First of all a medical. Asses the chances of whether or not you're likely to drop dead and leave the kid whilst they're too young to look after themselves.

2)Find out whether or not you have a history of genetic/heredity disease and whether you're likely to pass that on to a child.

3)A mental capability test. No so much intelligence. But find out whether or not the person is likely to neglect or abuse the child. Or simply whether they can handle parenthood.

4)And finally. Financial. It's not fair to the child or the state if you're going to require constant money to support a child. If you can't provide a decent standard of living yourself. Then you should not bring a child into the world.

These may sound like harsh, even Orwellian demands. But I think they're paramount to an evolved and civilised society and the sooner we work towards this kind of system the better.

I like this, but you could only use 2 in extreme cases, every person has some ancestor with some genetic problems. I know of some cases (my aunt) to whom this should definitely be applied, she had a VERY serious, always genetically transmitted heart condition and both her kids needed surgery before they were even a year old.

And I agree on this whole test, especially in poverty-stricken areas, everyone has 5 kids and no money! Everyone! It is horrible and adds to the poverty and pollution like nothing else.

 

[MindBullets]

I don't think it's either ethical or practical to give the government power to choose who can and can't reproduce.

All these stories we hear about people neglecting their children make it seem like it's a massive problem, but it's probably not as bad as it seems. Once you start handing over that kind of power over people's rights to the government, to do what they please with, it all starts to get a bit Orwellian.

Even if it were ethical, how the hell are you even supposed to enforce it? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions? Again, it just seems impractical and unethical. Pro-choice or not, I don't think anyone would want to have that forced upon them.