Lets require licensing for parents

[Purplelizard]

All good arguments, but it still boils down to this...

 

Does one really want the government poking their nose around one's uterus?

As it is today, the U.S. government wants to be in control of just about every aspect of our lives. Including how many children one can have. I did hear

about that one awhile back during one of the many health care "fantasies" they are dreaming up.

 

I am a Mom of 7, my kids were raised they way I was...earn an honest wage for an honest days work, to be honest, don't take any crap and be respectful. I wasn't spared the "willow switch" as a child, but, my kids were.

And I didn't raise any Charles Manson's or Fidel Castro's. " chuckle" Well you know what I mean, and it was all done without a license or a net.

[Sharkull]

Being a parent is one of the things I might say is actually a true human birthright. Raising a child however... that's more of a honour and privilege.

 

About the only thing I would even consider in this area would be a continual check on competence, as a way of protecting children from the bad things that can arise from bad parenting, with the penalty being the revocation of custody. This would provide a motive for bad parents to improve, to reunite their family. The problem with this idea is what you do with the children removed from bad homes... I'd guess that state run homes / foster care might sometimes be worse than broken homes.

:unsure:

[Vagrant0]

Normally, I would probably go off on some long, detailed argument about the specific aspects which I agree or disagree with. I'm not going to do that. I agree, you should have a license before you're allowed to have children, but the reality is that it won't happen. You can't lock away people's sexual organs until they've taken a class and passed a test. People (Americans and the western world mostly) wouldn't stand to have their children taken away for not having a license any more than people would stand for any other form of population control (like China's 1 child policy); there's been enough problem just allowing doctor assisted abortions. And, any sort of class or certification to become a parent would likely be third rate, be the source of endless debate over standardization and cultural values, and fail about as badly as driver's education.

 

Good idea, you're not the first to suggest it, but frankly, it isn't going to happen. Atleast not in this or any close parallel universe.

[Nexus Set]

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.)

 

The right to have a family is a basic human right and as such is protected by democratic governments. Parenting licenses would be considered a violation of this right.

 

Actually, what you propose would entitle the government the authority to dictate, who can and cannot have children. And I don't think that would sit well in any democratic country.

 

This proposal rests on the premise of who is willing to give up some of their rights for the promise of some security. I, for one, think it's too high a price to pay for such a small gain.

[TheCalliton]

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.

agreed

and Mill said (not exact words) If the governemnt infringes on your natural rights, life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness (includes children) you have the right to overthrow the government, like a reset button

 

also, different parents have different tactics for raising kids, no one style is the best, therefore the government wouldnt be able to pick a certain type to do

[stars2heaven]

All good arguments, but it still boils down to this...

 

Does one really want the government poking their nose around one's uterus?

As it is today, the U.S. government wants to be in control of just about every aspect of our lives. Including how many children one can have. I did hear

about that one awhile back during one of the many health care "fantasies" they are dreaming up.

 

I am a Mom of 7, my kids were raised they way I was...earn an honest wage for an honest days work, to be honest, don't take any crap and be respectful. I wasn't spared the "willow switch" as a child, but, my kids were.

And I didn't raise any Charles Manson's or Fidel Castro's. " chuckle" Well you know what I mean, and it was all done without a license or a net.

 

It may be the case that having the government poke its head into our lives is undesirable, yet we allow it in many instances. The process that adoptive parents must go through, for instance, is very intrusive into their lives. But we accept this, because we think it is best to not allow just anyone to adopt.

[stars2heaven]

The right to have a family is a basic human right and as such is protected by democratic governments. Parenting licenses would be considered a violation of this right.

 

Actually, what you propose would entitle the government the authority to dictate, who can and cannot have children. And I don't think that would sit well in any democratic country.

 

This proposal rests on the premise of who is willing to give up some of their rights for the promise of some security. I, for one, think it's too high a price to pay for such a small gain.

 

I still object to your first comment on the grounds that there are plenty of rights that we commonly restrict in order to protect innocents from harm. Life, liberty, property, the puruit of happiness are all rights that, while quite basic, are never granted in unrestricted capacities because all could result in the harm of innocents. Parenting badly can result in the harm of innocents also, so it being a basic right doesnt seem to protect it from restriction any more than any of these other rights are.

 

Deciding who can and cant have children may be a possible implementation of the idea, though I dont think its required, and see no reason for it to be.

 

As for your last comment, according to http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm there were an estimated 1,760 Child fatalities in the US that occured as a result of abuse. According to

http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow....php?p_faqid=70

there were nearly 800,000 cases of abuse victims in 07.

 

If it were possible to prevent the vast majority of these cases, would it still not be worth it?

 

edit, after doing the math with the info on these sites, to bring the numbers of abuse cases among chidlren raised by biological parents to the same rates as those of adoptive parents, we would need to prevent 517,000 additional cases of abuse each year.

[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.

agreed

and Mill said (not exact words) If the governemnt infringes on your natural rights, life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness (includes children) you have the right to overthrow the government, like a reset button

 

also, different parents have different tactics for raising kids, no one style is the best, therefore the government wouldnt be able to pick a certain type to do

 

We need not make fine distinctions about who is definately a good parent. We need only identify who is definately a bad one. For instance, we dont question whether a person who severely beats or neglects their child is adequate. Its fairly obvious that they arent. These are the types of people who would be the targets for discrimination when it comes to being alowed to parent.

[Deleted54170User]

I see! And I edited this after re-reading it and your posts.

 

Have a good day.

[Purplelizard]

All good arguments, but it still boils down to this...

 

Does one really want the government poking their nose around one's uterus?

As it is today, the U.S. government wants to be in control of just about every aspect of our lives. Including how many children one can have. I did hear

about that one awhile back during one of the many health care "fantasies" they are dreaming up.

 

I am a Mom of 7, my kids were raised they way I was...earn an honest wage for an honest days work, to be honest, don't take any crap and be respectful. I wasn't spared the "willow switch" as a child, but, my kids were.

And I didn't raise any Charles Manson's or Fidel Castro's. " chuckle" Well you know what I mean, and it was all done without a license or a net.

 

It may be the case that having the government poke its head into our lives is undesirable, yet we allow it in many instances. The process that adoptive parents must go through, for instance, is very intrusive into their lives. But we accept this, because we think it is best to not allow just anyone to adopt.

 

 

 

I am no means an expert when it comes to adoption, with that said. Adoption in my opinion is whole other area when it comes to parenting. While the vast majority I believe are very good people who in fact give their adopted children a very good life. The screening process is probably to save the child from further harm if the said child was in the foster care system or some other circumstance, or a newborn born to an addicted mother.

 

 

My Dad told me once, you didn't pick me as your Dad, I chose you as my child. Now deal with it. I did so, I became a successful business owner, a good Mom and I am fabulous Gramma. It is amazing to me though, my generation grew up without safety seats, some may have even slept in a dresser drawer cause our parents couldn't afford a crib. And most of us turned out fine. Not to knock the next generation, but some of them expect to much and the government to live in thier homes and this is fine with them. Next thing you know its bar-codes on the next generation's backside.