Lets require licensing for parents

[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

 

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.

even then, the kids raised in a "bad" environment can grow to make the world a better place after growing up so horribly, its all up to who the kid becomes

[Herculine]

I'm torn between two sides in this debate. I think requiring someone to prove that they are qualified to be a parent before allowing them to conceive is a wonderful idea... but who is qualified to determine their qualifications? I have no answer for this...

[Birrii]

So you're trying to say that this needs some kind of test, right?

But what if they fail the test? What if a woman fails the test, but becomes pregnant anyways? I think that something like this may be a good idea, but this needs lots of thinking etc.

We can't just force people NOT to be a parent. This is a difficult subject to talk about. I think parents-license is just impossible to make. If so many don't know how to raise a child, and the woman carries a child, what will we do then? Give her an abortion, or take the child away from her as quickly as possible? There won't be any available space in the nurseries (or wherever homeless children or abused children are taken care of) anymore. I've been to Moscow several times, and I was shocked, because I saw so many homeless children begging for money outside.

:/

[stars2heaven]

I'm torn between two sides in this debate. I think requiring someone to prove that they are qualified to be a parent before allowing them to conceive is a wonderful idea... but who is qualified to determine their qualifications? I have no answer for this...

 

Currently the adoption process does a pretty good job with weeding out the bad parents, something similar could do the same with any other parent. Its pretty evident considering children raised by their biological parents are as much as 5 times more likely to be abused that a child raised by their adoptive parents.

 

Here is the info that supports this statement.

 

 

 

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

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-6.pdf

[stars2heaven]

So you're trying to say that this needs some kind of test, right?

But what if they fail the test? What if a woman fails the test, but becomes pregnant anyways? I think that something like this may be a good idea, but this needs lots of thinking etc.

We can't just force people NOT to be a parent. This is a difficult subject to talk about. I think parents-license is just impossible to make. If so many don't know how to raise a child, and the woman carries a child, what will we do then? Give her an abortion, or take the child away from her as quickly as possible? There won't be any available space in the nurseries (or wherever homeless children or abused children are taken care of) anymore. I've been to Moscow several times, and I was shocked, because I saw so many homeless children begging for money outside.

:/

 

Incidentally, I agree with you. I dont think something like this is practical because no one will stand for it. However, The argument itself is valid, and most anyone would agree that its premises are true. If you accept both those things, then the conclusion follows with logical necessity, regarless of whether you agree with it or not.

 

As far as the rest of your comments go, here is what I think. There would certainly be many difficulties in implementing such a system. But there is no reason as of yet to think that these difficulties are insurmountable. Being uncertain as to how to implement the system doesnt undermine the idea that it ought to be implemented.

 

If you were uncertain as to how to appropriately regulate who could become a doctor or lawyer would that undermine the idea that those things ought to be regulated? Of course not.

 

On another note, I dont think that this argument should strictly be viewed as endorsing licensing for parents, only that parenting be regulated in some way. Regulation doesnt necessarily require that the government get involved or that licenses be required. Many people regulate their own actions on an individual level, or a community level, or by some other means other than licenses. It just so happens that the government is the traditional entity to enforce regulation, and licenses are the traditional means for regulating hazardous activities. But like I said, the neeed not be the ONLY things considered in this debate

[Fifoo]

As far as the rest of your comments go, here is what I think. There would certainly be many difficulties in implementing such a system. But there is no reason as of yet to think that these difficulties are insurmountable. Being uncertain as to how to implement the system doesnt undermine the idea that it ought to be implemented.

 

If you were uncertain as to how to appropriately regulate who could become a doctor or lawyer would that undermine the idea that those things ought to be regulated? Of course not.

 

On another note, I dont think that this argument should strictly be viewed as endorsing licensing for parents, only that parenting be regulated in some way. Regulation doesnt necessarily require that the government get involved or that licenses be required. Many people regulate their own actions on an individual level, or a community level, or by some other means other than licenses. It just so happens that the government is the traditional entity to enforce regulation, and licenses are the traditional means for regulating hazardous activities. But like I said, the neeed not be the ONLY things considered in this debate

I better understand now the way you put your argumentation on and I esteem your point of view... in theory that may sound pretty good but in practice... it's an other world.

 

Let me explain here what I mean by a quite simple example upon regulating and endorsing licensing. As far as we know, being regulated and licensed don't make you being someone well qualified for doing things by a good way in real time. In theory it may sounds good for you, but in practice, sorry, it won't for the most of time. See a new licensed car driver, his/her licensed status don't make him/her a good driver by mostly ways. It goes the same for the others drivers too. Only the real capacity gaining by your own experience or by improvement training course could make you a good/better driver, and under the limit of your own capacity to develop your skills, and we may find plenty of other examples in our everyday life by many ways. This is the same thing for parenting: by gaining your own capacity for doing so in a good way and by learning.

 

Then, we must be aware of the pernicious side of such a regulating system. Why, will you ask me... Simply because by not licensing someone you will almost take down any chance for him/her to grow in mind and to gain the capacity of leading children by a better way, and this would be disrespectful and unfair if you're not taking care about. You will misrepresent the beautifulest thing you could offer to a man or a woman: the chance to evolve. Any self-respecting man would pay attention on this.

 

I shall conclude here by this case: what are you doing for others couples like lesbians, gays and trans-genders, haven't they the same chances as others to give their love to a child... :smile:

[stars2heaven]

I better understand now the way you put your argumentation on and I esteem your point of view... in theory that may sound pretty good but in practice... it's an other world.

 

Let me explain here what I mean by a quite simple example upon regulating and endorsing licensing. As far as we know, being regulated and licensed don't make you being someone well qualified for doing things by a good way in real time. In theory it may sounds good for you, but in practice, sorry, it won't for the most of time. See a new licensed car driver, his/her licensed status don't make him/her a good driver by mostly ways. It's the same for the others drivers too. Only the real capacity gaining by your own experience or by improvement training course could make you a good/better driver, and under the limit of your own capacity to develop your skills, and we may find plenty of other examples in our everyday life by many ways. This is the same for parenting: by your own capacity for doing so in a good way and by learning.

 

Then, we must be aware of the pernicious side of such a regulating system. Why, will you ask me... Simply because by not licensing someone you will almost take down any chance for him/her to grow in mind and to gain the capacity of leading children by a better way, and this would be disrespectful and unfair if you're not taking care about. You will misrepresent the beautifulest thing you could offer to a man or a woman: the chance to evolve. Any self-respecting man would pay attention on this.

 

I shall conclude here by this case: what are you doing for others couples like lesbians, gays and trans-genders, haven't they the same chances as others to give their love to a child... :smile:

 

Oh certainly there would be no reason to discriminate against lesbians, gays, or trans-genders in this matter. They make as good of parents (and sometimes as bad) as anyone else, so they should be subject to the same licensing procedures.

 

In the case of the example of the driver that you mentioned I would agree. Just as with licensing drivers, licensing parents shouldnt be expected to not let through a few bad apples, or even to deny a few good ones. But I would like to point out that no blind person will ever slip through the cracks. Therefore, there is no reason to think that some of the absolute worst parents might slip through the cracks either. Those who are eminentely likely to do harm to a child will stand out against a psychological test or investigations into the home life, just as a blind person will imediately stand out against any driving test.

 

Your last comment is an interesting one and quite imaginative. Though I think I have a response to it that I hope is adequate. There are multiple aspects to your comment, so I will go over each that I think is most important.

 

First, it is often the case that when we deny a person a drivers license or we deny them the chance to practice medicine, or whatever their craft may be, that we do them some harm in the process. By denying a person a drivers license we limit their freedom in many ways. By denying a person the chance to perform a certain craft we can often impose tragic consequences on their lives. We may remove their only means of income, or deny a life long dream, or it may be the only thing that they knew how to do. Yet, most people think that this is an acceptable consequence. If allowing these people to continue in these activities puts innocents at immanent risk of harm it is acceptable that they suffer the unfortunate consequences of regulation. It is sad, but almost always viewed as necessary. So the case is the same with parenting. It is sad to deny some people the opportunity, but it is worse that children be unnecessarily abused in order to grant someone that opportunity.

 

Second, I do not believe that this ought to be an all or nothing proposition. If someone fails to pass whatever tests are involved, there is no reason that they should not be granted a second, or third, or infinite number of chances to try again. If a person/couple were to fail the "test", it may be fair to offer education courses or some manner of help to make it possible for them to become parents at a later time. In this way, only those simply unable to improve themselves would be permanently denied the opportunity to become parents, and for those who try again, they AND their children will be better off for it. So I believe this would satisfy your comment about the chance to evolve.

[Purplelizard]

Having a Driver's license doesn't mean one is going to be a good driver or never drink and drive. Nor does a person with a medical license keep one from being a bad doctor.

 

So how does one go about implementing this?

 

Do we start the licensing process in Junior High? Do we do background checks on the teen's parents? Poke our noses in their parenting skills or lack of them?

 

An abused child doesn't necessarily grow up to be an abuser. That line of thinking goes down the same path as a person with an alcoholic parent becomes one also. Which is B.S in my opinion.

In today's society, a child can scream bloody murder that their parent is smacking them around if the whim suits their need at time. What happens then? Do the birthing police come in a revoke your license, cause the kid didn't get his or her way?

[stars2heaven]

Having a Driver's license doesn't mean one is going to be a good driver or never drink and drive. Nor does a person with a medical license keep one from being a bad doctor.

 

So how does one go about implementing this?

 

Do we start the licensing process in Junior High? Do we do background checks on the teen's parents? Poke our noses in their parenting skills or lack of them?

 

An abused child doesn't necessarily grow up to be an abuser. That line of thinking goes down the same path as a person with an alcoholic parent becomes one also. Which is B.S in my opinion.

In today's society, a child can scream bloody murder that their parent is smacking them around if the whim suits their need at time. What happens then? Do the birthing police come in a revoke your license, cause the kid didn't get his or her way?

 

@Purplelizard

 

I agree, no license guarantees good behavior. However, I think it is presupposed that by the fact that we do require licenses for these things that we at least think that these licenses prevent, if not the majority, a large number of people who ought not be allowed to perform these activities from performing them. If this is not the case, and only a very small number, or none at all, are prevented from performing these activities, then this would serve as an excellent objection to this argument.

 

It is true that an abused child doesnt necessarily become an abuse, though there is strong evidence to show that the likely hood is vastly increased. As is the likelyhood that a child of an alcohol abuser will themselves abuse alcohol vastly increased. Im not sure though of the relevance of this. Perhaps as a discussion of the consequences of abuse? In that case, it only serves to strengthen the argument, for the harm to children is not the imediate hurt, but a life long trauma.

 

I would not be anymore worried about such things as you mention in your last comment under this system as you would be now. However, if this is a genuine concern of yours about the current system, then it me be that certain things need to be altered to make a better system. Such alterations could be included in whatever system is adopted to regulate parenting.

 

As far as your first question, Im not all that certain, honestly. A general acceptance of why it is a good thing would have to come first. Honestly, my purpose with this argument was not to actually propose a system that we could implement. But try to create discussion about something that many of us would take as an afront to our generaly held beliefs/values, even though we would accept the premises of this argument as true.

[Purplelizard]

Stars,

I took a few snipped quotes from some of your posts. So I can better understand your point of view. And possibly explain my views better.

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.

 

What test are you referring to?

 

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.

 

Raising a child can't be done through reading some sort of "instruction manual". And having some "regulatory panel" deciding what is deemed competent or not isn't a solution either. Who is to say what the proper skills are needed? Our government, heck they can't even regulate themselves. Social services?, they aren't much better but alas that is all we have as a safeguard.

 

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.)

 

To some people parenting is as natural as breathing. Some people, sorry to say, have children just out of selfishness, example lack of birth control, to get more public assistance, the notion they need something to cuddle and love( because the older ones have become more independent) etc. Those children are the ones who suffer the most in my opinion.

 

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.

 

The United States already lacks proper space for children now. Do we house them on old military bases?

 

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.

 

Possibly, but there isn't going to be a way to prevent it from happening at all. One abused child is one too many. Some statistics may not be accurate, meaning some people say a light swat on the backside is child abuse. Or a tap on the hand when the child grabs something dangerous or is told not to touch anything. Do you take ones child away for that? And some Social workers are overzealous in the reporting their findings on abuse. Some act is if they are on a crusade and are eager to take one's child for any reason not agreeable to their standards.

 

Second, I do not believe that this ought to be an all or nothing proposition. If someone fails to pass whatever tests are involved, there is no reason that they should not be granted a second, or third, or infinite number of chances to try again. If a person/couple were to fail the "test", it may be fair to offer education courses or some manner of help to make it possible for them to become parents at a later time. In this way, only those simply unable to improve themselves would be permanently denied the opportunity to become parents, and for those who try again, they AND their children will be better off for it. So I believe this would satisfy your comment about the chance to evolve.

 

After as series of chances and the prospective parents are "denied" the license for proper parenting, what then? Do they sterilize them? Have you read any of these "parenting books" out there? While some maybe practical but most seems to lack sound judgment for the "real world". I attended a parenting class a few years ago. The instructor sounded as if we should all live in this so-called "Walgreen's world".

 

As far as your first question, Im not all that certain, honestly. A general acceptance of why it is a good thing would have to come first. Honestly, my purpose with this argument was not to actually propose a system that we could implement. But try to create discussion about something that many of us would take as an afront to our generaly held beliefs/values, even though we would accept the premises of this argument as true.

 

You did put up an excellent topic for debate. I was a little taken aback by how many would welcome such a program, to let the government in our homes and personal lives. May I ask is the research for a college class? I ask because of your writing style and your answers to some of the posts. Some of you responses seem right out of a textbook. How many children have you raised?