Lets require licensing for parents

[stars2heaven]

We require licensing for all sorts of things. Namely, activities that are potentially harmful to others and so require a level of competence to perform them safely. This applies to doctors, lawyers, pilots, drivers, etc. It is important that we require licensing for these activities for these reasons. The protection of innocents from harm trumps the individuals right to pursue these activities, even if they end up being inconvenienced or greatly disappointed.

 

These are general criteria for when we ought to regulate a certain activity. Like some of the mentioned activities, parenting also meets these criteria. That parenting is potentially harmful to children should be immediately apparent. Children are physically abused in the 100s of millions each year, and mentally abused in far greater numbers. It should also be evident that for a parent to avoid harming their children, he/she must be competent in parenting. Many, MANY people lack the knowledge, energy, temperament, or stability necessary for good parenting.

Having met those two criteria it should be given that the regulation of parenting is at least theoretically desirable. So that leads me to the third and final criteria for any activity deemed desirable to regulate: that there is a moderately reliable procedure for determining competence.

 

In the case of parenting, as in the other cases above, there is. It would be a fairly simple task to eliminate the worst possible parents with even a much simpler system than is used to determine whether a people applying for adoption would make adequate parents. Simply identifying if a person is violence prone or easily frustrated would count as simple things that could be tested for. Under the system that adoptive parents must go through, adopted children are as much as 5 times less likely to be abused by their adoptive parents than an average child is to be abused by their biological parents, and the process that one must go through is quite rigorous.

 

Considering the fact that parenting is an activity that requires competence in order to do it well and to prevent harm from others (namely children), and that there is a moderately reliable test for determining competence, its seems to follow that regulating parenting through licensing, or some equivalent means, is something that ought to be done.

 

For the sake of brevity I guess Ill cut this short here as its getting a little long and I could say a lot more.

[SavageArtistry]

On behalf of those who were born to irresponsible parents, I agree with you, even if I do loathe the idea of the government interfering in life even more than it already does.

[Nexus Set]

Let me say that I'm not into it simply because I don't think the government is qualified for the job of qualifying parents.

I'm sure somewhere along the way it's gonna end up being a human rights violation.

[stars2heaven]

Let me say that I'm not into it simply because I don't think the government is qualified for the job of qualifying parents.

I'm sure somewhere along the way it's gonna end up being a human rights violation.

 

But otherwise you dont disagree that it is, at least, theorecticaly desirable?

 

But still, it seems to me that there is no reason to believe that more mistakes will be made in administering parenting licenses than in other regulatory activities. If that is your point. But even that there would be mistakes doesnt seem to me to be enough reason to object to the idea. If the grand purpose is to protect children, then it would seem that to mistakenly deny some people the right would not cause nearly the harm that allowing just anyone the right could cause. We generally accept this to be the case with things such as driving, or practicing medicine. The analogy holds in the case of parenting as well.

[Purplelizard]

Kinda like a Driver's Ed sort of deal?

 

The system already has is own flawed idea of "licensing" parents..it's called "Social services". All you have to do nowadays is look at your kid sideways, and DHS is

ready to "revoke" your license. Do we really need another reason for the government to be in our homes?

[Nexus Set]

... If the grand purpose is to protect children, then it would seem that to mistakenly deny some people the right would not cause nearly the harm that allowing just anyone the right could cause. We generally accept this to be the case with things such as driving, or practicing medicine. The analogy holds in the case of parenting as well.

 

We should well remember that driving licenses and professional licenses are privileges. You don't get a right to drive or a right to practice medicine, you get a privilege. Such is what a license entitles. A license cannot lawfully revoke a person's right. Tell me now, would you want your government to dictate how many children you are allowed to have?

 

As Purplelizard's post stated above, democratic governments do have a system in place to support victims of child abuse.

[GeorgeLeroyTirebiter]

... If the grand purpose is to protect children, then it would seem that to mistakenly deny some people the right would not cause nearly the harm that allowing just anyone the right could cause. We generally accept this to be the case with things such as driving, or practicing medicine. The analogy holds in the case of parenting as well.

 

We should well remember that driving licenses and professional licenses are privileges. You don't get a right to drive or a right to practice medicine, you get a privilege. Such is what a license entitles. A license cannot lawfully revoke a person's right. Tell me now, would you want your government to dictate how many children you are allowed to have?

 

As Purplelizard's post stated above, democratic governments do have a system in place to support victims of child abuse.

 

It's not easy to keep people away from guns, cars, or other things that already require licenses...what would you do with children born to people with no license? Anyways, many people who would turn out to be unsuitable licensees would initially be able to reproduce...

 

Be careful what you ask for. A government that would administer reproductive rights according to its whims wouldn't be content to only trample people's right to reproduce with impunity. A Brave New World or a New World Order might not be what people envision as the ideal future.

[stars2heaven]

... If the grand purpose is to protect children, then it would seem that to mistakenly deny some people the right would not cause nearly the harm that allowing just anyone the right could cause. We generally accept this to be the case with things such as driving, or practicing medicine. The analogy holds in the case of parenting as well.

 

We should well remember that driving licenses and professional licenses are privileges. You don't get a right to drive or a right to practice medicine, you get a privilege. Such is what a license entitles. A license cannot lawfully revoke a person's right. Tell me now, would you want your government to dictate how many children you are allowed to have?

 

As Purplelizard's post stated above, democratic governments do have a system in place to support victims of child abuse.

 

Yes, but not right is granted with unrestricted acces. The right to freedom of religion or speach could both be harmful to innosents if those freedoms were unrestricted. Rights can sometimes be limited in order to protect people from harm. Limiting rights to parenting would acheive that end.

 

Whether or not I would want my government dictating how many children I could have is irrelevant to the argument at hand. This is only over who can and cant raise children, not who can have children (necessarily), and especially not how many children a person can have (though it potentially does in some instances, where having a certain number of children amounts to the neglect of those children, thus rendering the parents competence suspect.)

[stars2heaven]

It's not easy to keep people away from guns, cars, or other things that already require licenses...what would you do with children born to people with no license? Anyways, many people who would turn out to be unsuitable licensees would initially be able to reproduce...

 

Be careful what you ask for. A government that would administer reproductive rights according to its whims wouldn't be content to only trample people's right to reproduce with impunity. A Brave New World or a New World Order might not be what people envision as the ideal future.

 

I absolutely agree with you. Just as with any activity that is regulated, the licensing of parents should not be expeted to be perfect. All that should be expected si that the worst of parents, those whoul would do great harm to their children, be prevented from raising children.

 

A possible solution to unlicensed people who have children, and arent found to be competent to raise children, would be to put the child up for adoption.

 

This isnt an argument favoring a new world order or some such, only that parenting rights be regulated. This argument is analagous to adoptive rights, and many other activities that are regulated for similar reasons. If one were to object to this on the grounds that government intrusion is impermissible, then why not for those things as well?

[Fifoo]

...

Considering the fact that parenting is an activity that requires competence in order to do it well and to prevent harm from others (namely children), and that there is a moderately reliable test for determining competence, its seems to follow that regulating parenting through licensing, or some equivalent means, is something that ought to be done.

...

It's a serious question that give us to do some soul-searching about relationship between family environment and parenting, of course it's a shame when parents seemed to have poor competences for raising their children and doing it right...

 

...but who has the rights for determining the true good model of parenting, and who have the capacity to put those good rules in real cases, who could determine to whom it may concern and would give a selection of experts, psychiatrists, "headshrinkers" for doing so through licensing, a selection of jurists, lawyers, legal practitioners, or judges... be careful of whom you trust or put trust in, depending on what political country you live or not...

 

...could you simply imagine the results about giving licenses or not, you may have perhaps 50% of declared good licensed parents and 30% bad parents with others 20% of people that even don't want to have kids because of that licensing test, it's just an example, the reversal may be true if the licensing setting levels were on high... a real mentally and physically tragedy for those who couldn't have their licenses...

 

...what sort of future would you give to those splitted parents and eventualy adopted children in all the world, are you really sure they would even all accept this fact... how much of them do you think they may fall in delinquency...

 

IMO this may be absolutely against ethics and democracy basis, and certainly could tend in negative impacts for human demography with a loss of birthrate... perhaps could we find an another solution for having children best interests at heart, just giving parents a little good guidance may help...

 

Nevertheless, stars2heaven, your topic have the merit to point up such important questions and we must never forget the fact that the greatest respect is due to the child, considering this as a personal statement.

 

Fifoo.