Should Parenting be Licensed? A Very Tricky Question.

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
'Any fool with a **** can make a baby but it takes a real man to be a father' - Boyz in the Hood

In the UK, and probably in the US and most countries, you need a license to drive a car, to own a dog, possess a gun, to fish etc, etc.

If we need a license, training and background checks for these, should we not need a license for the most important and difficult task a human can undertake - that of having a child?

It's a very touchy subject. I myself don't like to sit on the fence, but I find pros and cons in both sides of the argument. In the persuit of a firm opinion I'll try and discuss them.

Every now and again an abuse case comes to light, where a child has been killed or beaten by a parent or guardian. In these cases there is usually astonishing brutality and lack of basic parenting skills. Each time it happens I say "You need a license to drive a car, but any idiot can have a baby". Is this a valid argument? You know it just maybe.

Think about it, why do we issue car licenses? Because a car can be lethal in the wrong hands - just like bad parenting. Because driving a car is difficult and needs guidance and pratice - just like bringing up a child.

How would it work? Well. I think there would be a fee involved, this would take care of lessons in childcare, equipment for the baby, checks on the parents for suitability, social worker visits to the house. There would be a test, like with a car license, criminal background checks to rule out those with records of viloence or abuse.

The real difficulties come when we discuss unplanned pregnancies.

It's all well and good for those people who want their children, pass their Parental License(PL) fine, pay their fee and get the support they want. But what about unplanned pregnancies. I think that for the most part, these people will probably be aborting or giving up their children anyway, so having a PL systyem would not change that.

For those that fail the PL process, well they get the support and training to try again, and pass. What about those who fail the background & suitability checks? The system obviously cannot stop them from having the child, but at least they would be flagged as an at risk preganancy and given special attention, plus help to try and pass the license test and to address issues found.

The only major issue I feel is the cost. I think that the cost of a PL should be covered by the state in extreme cases, but the benefits of the training (savings in future medical costs), backgound checks (future socail worker visits) and general improvement in society would far outway the costs of subsidising PL in those cases where the parent(s) cannot afford it.

And what about those who fail the PL time and time again? Well my friends, just like with a car, those people should just not get behind the wheel to begin with.

Mod Edit: No profanity please


[edit on 8/9/09 by FredT]




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Yes, I think at the very basic people should have to take some sort of class that deals with child rearing etc.

You cannot drive a car without passing a series of tests (Or fly a plane et al for that matter)

But THE most important functions of a human ---- rearing children requires nothing, aero, aip, nada.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


No. I don't.

Statistically speaking there are far, far more parents doing it right. Over 99% more parents are gentle with their children than those that are abusive.

For thousands upon thousands of years of human history parenting was considered sacred and instinctive. Even scientists will tell you we are preprogrammed for it. So why reduce the rights of those who are good parents because there are mentally ill people in the world? It just feels...ugly and wrong.

Why is it always about reducing or removing rights?

Dog licenses are not to protect dogs. Fishing licenses are not to protect fish. I'll give you driver's licenses, tho.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


I agree, there should be a mandatory class or a test, or anything.

But it is slippery question, who gets to decide who is worthy and who is not? Do we leave it up to the government? To the community? To doctors?

Can any of these people be trusted to make the right decisions?

These are the vital questions that must be asked. I think parenting should be done more universaly today. I don't think that 2 people should raise 1 child. I think that every outstanding and positively influencing adult should have a role in a child's development.

From a serious standpoint, me and my husband have raised phenominal kids, and I'm not just saying that to toot my own horn here. They are wonderful, intelligent, well spoken, respectfull and aware of their surroundings.

But I didn't do it myself, let alone with just the two of us. It's because they were raised in an environment where there were literally dozens of adults they could to for any sort of problem or advice.

Why contain your learning environment to the limited scope of two invididuals?

Anyway, that's a bit off topic.

Parenting is the single most important endeavour you will undertake in life. You are creating the next generation of humans who will lead the world, or follow those who lead it.

How some people can go about their days raising little drone zombies is beyond me.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 




In the UK, and probably in the US and most countries, you need a license to drive a car, to own a dog, possess a gun, to fish etc, etc.

If we need a license, training and background checks for these, should we not need a license for the most important and difficult task a human can undertake - that of having a child?


We shouldnt need a license to "drive a car, to own a dog, possess a gun, to fish ". This is just some BS way so they can make some revenue by taxing us even more and keep their nose in our business.

They need to stay the heck out of our lives and worry about what they are doing because God knows the government has enough problems without worrying about whether I got a fishing license or something.

As far as parenting goes, we need to stay the heck out of each others business. If your neighbor is a bad parent its none of your business. Worry about your own kids and quit crying to daddy government everytime someone does something in a way you dont agree with.

[edit on 8/9/2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by kiwifoot
 




In the UK, and probably in the US and most countries, you need a license to drive a car, to own a dog, possess a gun, to fish etc, etc.

If we need a license, training and background checks for these, should we not need a license for the most important and difficult task a human can undertake - that of having a child?


We shouldnt need a license to "drive a car, to own a dog, possess a gun, to fish ". This is just some BS way so they can make some revenue by taxing us even more and keep their nose in our business.

They need to stay the heck out of our lives and worry about what they are doing because God knows the government has enough problems without worrying about whether I got a fishing license or something.

As far as parenting goes, we need to stay the heck out of each others business. If your neighbor is a bad parent its none of your business. Worry about your own kids and quit crying to daddy government everytime someone does something in a way you dont agree with.

[edit on 8/9/2009 by grapesofraft]


Yes very clever mate, but what about the children? Tell me about the rights of a two year old with two broken legs and a broken back, what's more important in that case, your precious right to privacy or the right for this child to be loved and treated like a human being!?

Two words mate - big picture.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Removed because I acted like an idiot.


[edit on 8/9/2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Sorry Grapesoft, I'm gonna have to agree with Kiwi here.

Your right to privacy ends when you begin to put your well being above that of the child's.

If my neighboor is raising his kids really poorly and it's affecting my life in any way, than I have the right to speak up and tell him to be a man.

It's his responsibility, and it's mine to give him hell for not doing it. I can't force him to do anything and I don't need the government to step in, but I can knock on his door and tell him what I think.

A child's growing is far more important your privacy.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Seriously though, do you realize what will happen if you license parenting. You will inflate the size of government even bigger, costing even more money. Then you will have some whiney, sniveling social worker at your house trying to tell you how you cannot spank your children and if you do they will take them away. You will basically have the government up your ass 24/7 is that what you want?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
At first I was like "YES! Of course. No more schizo mommies eating their babies. No more locking kids in closets."

But to be honest... when you remove government, and economics, and our entire fake culture which we've built up... all we can do is eat, sleep, survive, and have kids.

So, of course not.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


I do understand what you're saying, and no of course that's not what I want. I don't say it will be easy, or pleasant, but I think it may just be neccessary.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


You see the problem with your lines of thinking are that you think your way of parenting is correct. Whose to say when the government licensees and monitors your parenting skills they will agree? You just assume you are right. I am a pretty darn good parent myself, but I dont want to open it up to the discretion of some 20 yr old kid just out of college who thinks he is saving the world because his daddy was abusive to him.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


I never mentioned government involvement. I'm very much against the government in my child's life.

And to tell you the truth I KNOW that my parenting works, because my children are successfull and happy. Isn't that proof enough?

I'm sure you children are as well, which would lead me to believe that you are a good parent. I'm not saying that we need a standard of parenting to be followed by all, that just won't work.

What I'm saying is that perhaps there are those who should think twice about having children in today's climate, with their limited skills and knowledge of how to do so, that's all.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


I see your side too, and I hate when people abuse their kids. Hell I had to leave my wife and take the kids because she was abusing them, but I dont think it is ever a good idea to give up your right to privacy and freedom and control of your own family, just because a small percentage of the planet sucks at parenting. There has to be a better solution.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well yeah there are lots of people who should just get there reproduction parts turned off. Like if you have 5 kids and the governments paid to feed them their whole life you shouldnt be working on number 6.

I am sure you are a good parent. I have read a bunch of your posts and seems like you do a great job. What the OP is proposing is licensing parenting, well you cant stop people from having babies short of a vasectomy or tying their tubes or something like that. So that means to license it means you would have to monitor that they were doing it how the government thought it should be done.

I know you are in a gay marriage, and so you of all people should fear government involvement, because what if the guy sees you two kiss and decides it is bad for the kids and bam they are taken, just because you kissed someone you loved.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Your right to privacy ends when you begin to put your well being above that of the child's.


What about prior to putting your well being above that of the child's?




If my neighboor is raising his kids really poorly and it's affecting my life in any way, than I have the right to speak up and tell him to be a man.


Very true.

There are also child abuse/neglect hotlines you can call if he/she doesn't listen or you feel uncomfortable confronting him/her.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
How would they even regulate it, to be honest? You could just go into the woods and raise a kid.

Plus, first everyone would go "Boo, no gays!" and then "She had an abortion! She can't have a kid!" and it would just spiral out of control.

And what about genetics? Like if you and your significant other are DNA tested and there's a chance your child could have an increased risk for a disease? "Oh, sorry, no. No you two can't have children."

NOOOOOOOOO.

[edit on 8/9/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Funny you mention that, the schools attempted to take away my children when they were first adopted due to that very fact. Luckily I have a very good lawyer and they settled out of court
.

No, but as I said above, it's a very tricky and slippery slope when we begin to talk about who gets to have kids and who doesn't. And I agree that any system that enforced this type of behaviour would include some taking of rights.

I'm against that, after all I am a libertarian. What should be done and what can be done are two very different things today.

And thanks for the compliment.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
No, no, no, and even more no for having a license to raise a kid. This is beyond absurd. That would ultimately give strangers power over how you raise your child and is total and utter BS. I have my sons best interest in mind and my morals are just that, my morals. I do not live in a so called free country so I can have others morals forced upon the way I choose to raise my kid.

It is bad enough that we have to have a license, but then again that is something your getting trained for i.e. Driving a vehicle. No one knows more than the next about raising a child therefor cannot license it. It is something that is instinctive by nature.

People who abuse their kids are mental, there is no other logical reason for such a thing. As far as others not liking how you raise your kid, guess what its not their kid so they need to keep their nose out of ones business UNLESS they have reason to believe the child is being abused physically.

I don't know about others on here, but I take damn good care of my son, and if a person was to come knock on my door and give me their two cents, we would have a HUGE problem. I am not a violent person, there is just bounds you do not cross.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


You are exactly right. Parenting would be controlled by whatever the masses deemed correct. You cant homeschool because it is abuse. You cant watch your own children and must go to work and put them in day care because we feel guilty when you stay home and watch yours and we have to put ours in day care. You are openly gay in front of the kids, gone. You drank a beer during the football game and the kids saw it, gone. You fart and cuss too much, gone. Your wife is nagging the kids, gone. You made them clean their room and took away their toys for a few days for being irresponsible with them, gone. ETC, ETC, ETC!!!





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join