Should You Have to Get a License to Raise Children?

[katsumoto03]

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 say this guy should be the leader. Of everything...

Ever.

 

[faspxina]

That's a terrible idea. As if the world wasn't unnecessarily bureaucratic enough.

Unnecessarily bureaucratic my ass!

It has gotten a lot less bureaucratic in the last 100 years.

I swear, civilians. Give em' an inch and they'll take a mile.

I don't know about your ass, but I think the idea of taking a test to raise a child, while good intentioned, is unpractical.

There would either be a test easy enough for everyone, even bad parents, to pass, or a test so hard, that even decent parents would be denied from having a child. Either way, there would still be as much bad parenting as there is bad driving.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

This is
- anti free will

It's anti free will to give birth to children as it is. No one asks if the CHILD actually wants to be born into a family with neglective and abusive parents, yet our fucked up society let's these imbeciles giver birth to and take care of children anyway. So our current practice is already "anti free will".

- reminding me of stalinism or even nazisim

Is that even an argument? Something "reminds" you of something, hence it must be wrong?

- allowing ppl who arent any better themselves to lecture others of how to act(as in the Elite)

How do you know they aren't "any better"? And even if they aren't, then they wouldn't be permitted to raise children either, so that point of yours is moot.

- a typical simpleminded rightwing view on how to fix a problem. Like when the britons sailed their criminals to Australia

Wow, that's a completely unrelated and useless analogy. Care to invent a few more for our amusement?

parents, school, community and society is already giving all the education you need to become a parent, and those that neglect already gets punished.

What does it matter if the parents get punished? The children have already been put through suffering as it is. Punishing the parents for their crimes or neglective behaviour isn't going to help the children at all.

Better stop the abusive fuck-ups calling themselves parents from getting their hands on the children in the first place and thus prevent the irrevocable injury they would ultimately cause...

 

[DemonicVixen]

-snip-.

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

Does that include a REALISTIC simulation of what the worst baby, child and teenager is like so that each parent gets a proper idea of what to expect?

I believe id be good with kids, I am good with kids. But the kids I deal with I can hand back in a few hours or a day or two. A real baby is for 18+ years. No child is the same. No simulation will tell you exactly what a child is like because its not possible.
A mental health check wouldnt do that either. Some people go their whole lives without depression until their child is born-5yrs old. After that things become SLIGHTLY easier, and then the teenage years start. A parent must then fight with "I HATE YOU!" "GO DIE" "I WANT MORE MONEY!" etc etc. No wonder many have heart problems.

As nice as the idea is and I wish it were possible, sadly it really is IMPOSSIBLE

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

or a test so hard, that even decent parents would be denied from having a child.

So?

It's not about giving the parents an easy time. Raising children is supposed to be a privilige. If you don't cut it then you have no business raising children in the first place. If your idea of "decent" doesn't cut it then tough shit. It is completely irrelevant...

 

[Tiny116]

Quite honestly I think the idea is despicable. I know there are children out there who have a rotten life or whose lives are in danger, but that's what social services are for.

And social services have an exemplary record of always working and insuring that all children recieve a decent upbringing... (yes, I am in fact being sarcastic).

Procreation is NOT a "human right". Claiming it to be a human right is tantamount to spitting every neglected and mistreated child in the face...

I never said that Social services were perfect, but neither would a "Procreation Licence".
Everyone has a right to have children, that is not an insult to the children who have been mistreated, they have rights as well. The fact that the systems in effect today are flawed enough for children to be mistreated is proof enough that licensing will as well.
It's probably best to agree to disagree. These are one of those situations where a compromise is near impossible.

 

[Beastialman]

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.

While it'd be hard to enforce we could find some way at birth to temporarily neuter someone, later in life if they want to be a parent they can be un-neutered. Think about it, only a dedicated parent would want to have a procedure done on their most prized possession (all we'd really have to do is enforce it on 100% of males or females).


Edit: Yes that was a horrible thing for me to even consider.

 

[spartan231490]

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?

Love the idea, but I think only one parent should need the liscense.

 

[kickyourass]

As much as I'd like to say yes, there would be too many problems with it for it to be practical, not least of which being that it'd be nearly impossible to enforce in most countries, and it's easy to see that sort of law mutating into something out of 1984 or something.

And lastly I'd just like to point out something

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*)

I absolutely love what you did there, I mean you criticize others for pointing to a tiny minority of people in support of this sort of law, and then literally three sentences later you do almost the EXACT SAME THING.

 

[Lord Kloo]

@OP

Can I just say as a way of enforcing it:

The egg-heads already invented an injectable 'something-or-another' that women can have inserted under their skin so they don't get pregnant for about 3 months or something like that so it can't be too hard to extend this treatment to everyone (not just women there must be something to suppress male testosterone) and so when you pass you're exam you can come off the drug/slip/whatever and have a child if you want one.. or two..

Quote me if I'm wrong but I think there is then a way of enforcing your idea and so half the arguments on this forum are invalid..

(IMPO, please don't flame me.. or eat me)

P.S. - oh yeah they do sometimes cause mood problems but I'm sure we can get over those with some drugs or improvements to the existing drugs..

 

[DannibalG36]

Wow.

You would reduce a parent's aptitude for a task absolutely unique to the child and the parents involved to something like an SAT? You would put a child's wellbeing into the hands of governmental bureaucracy (which is notorious for royally fucking most of what it touches)? You would actually regulate the production and stewardship of life itself?

Please, if you honestly believe that this idea has any merit, feel free to move to China and/or campaign to have life sucked away from you into a maelstrom of tyranny.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I never said that Social services were perfect, but neither would a "Procreation Licence".
Everyone has a right to have children, that is not an insult to the children who have been mistreated, they have rights as well. The fact that the systems in effect today are flawed enough for children to be mistreated is proof enough that licensing will as well.
It's probably best to agree to disagree. These are one of those situations where a compromise is near impossible.

The only risk such a system would pose would be that some willing parents who might have been adequate don't get to raise childrebn anyway due to failing some part of the test or inspections, but that's hardly a loss worth caring about.

Having children should never be a right. The children deserve better, since our society has already balatantly ignored their will in allowing them to be born in the first place...

 

[Rachel317]

No, government would force an abortion(Or if the baby is born, euthanize it). We have 9 months to do it. That's a pretty big time span.

Ah, but then how is it fair to abort a perfectly healthy child, and why should the government have ultimate say over the child? And, if the child is born, it would count as murder.
Abortion and euthanasia cannot be enforced, because it is the mother's choice as to whether she aborts and, as I said, murder is not taken lightly. It sounds more tyrannical society than democracy.

I must say, I agreed with your first point about the license, it DOES sound like a good idea, but I absolutely disagree with forced termination and murder. This is going beyond the realms of realism and acceptable conduct now.

 

[Rachel317]

@OP
The egg-heads already invented an injectable 'something-or-another' that women can have inserted under their skin so they don't get pregnant for about 3 months or something like that so it can't be too hard to extend this treatment to everyone (not just women there must be something to suppress male testosterone) and so when you pass you're exam you can come off the drug/slip/whatever and have a child if you want one.. or two..

Quote me if I'm wrong but I think there is then a way of enforcing your idea and so half the arguments on this forum are invalid..

(IMPO, please don't flame me.. or eat me)

P.S. - oh yeah they do sometimes cause mood problems but I'm sure we can get over those with some drugs or improvements to the existing drugs..

It's not right that someone else should get to dictate this, though. Inserting a "rod" into the skin of a woman...no, unless she agrees, that's an absolute violation of her human rights.
Also, this thing is a lot more complicated than you think. It has a LOT of other side effects.

No, tampering with someone else's body, without their permission, is absolutely diabolical. What if the woman refuses? Is she imprisoned, so that she physically cannot become pregnant? What if she has a horrible reaction to the chemicals? Is she forced to keep it in, regardless?

No, it's been said before, it's a great idea on paper, TERRIBLE in practise. Again, why should one person dictate what the criteria is for you to meet so that you can have a child? How can you apply one test to every parent and child, when EVERY child is unique?

Sorry, but forced medication is a horrendous idea.

 

[Ghengis John]

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?

Bad idea. Sounds like a great way to overburden the government and allow the rich and powerful to make demands of the poor. In short, Bad idea.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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?

1 problem. Licenses do not a parent make. Just like there are plenty of bad drivers out there with legally obtained licenses, there will also be horribad parents with licenses. It in no way shape or form guarantees a good parent, but adds a level of paperwork the otherwise average good parent will have to navigate through to make a baby. And it won't stop people from pro-creating. And humanitarian wise you cannot take someone's right to reproduce away. SO, in essence, it will be a bigger hassle and accomplish little more than putting more money in the government's pocket that they can blow on things we'll never see or hear about.