Childcare isn’t a bad thing for a child. Nor necessarily is being raised by someone other than a “natural parent”, whatever you mean by that.
If the parents have neither the wish nor the time to be the fulll-time parents of their own children, one has to question their incentive for wanting to have them. Being a parent should not be something with an ulterior motive. Nor the selfish fulfillment of the reproductive instinct. Nor an accident that you shrug off and try not to botch up too badly.
Actually, there is a better alternative to licensure. Freely accessible and socially acceptable abortion and reliable, easy birth control. That would take care of a great majority of births of not-really-wanted and soon-to-be neglected and abused children that licensing would weed out.
Look – parents are volunteers. If you don’t want to do it right, don’t rraise your hand.
Are the child’s nose and mouth underwater?*
Is the child not able getting their head about water?
This is not as tricky as spotting the signs of a child playing on a freeway.
Is this a freeway?
Is there a child playing on it?
*It actually happened. I helped my cousin take his three toddlers / small children (he had twins so they were all very small) swimming. We both had one child and then shared looking at the third. In just a few moments while we were both busy, the older girl fell into the water and didn’t get back up. Damn that was scary. I never took both my kids by myself until my daughter was old enough.
Looking at the list and how it applied to my parents: Check! Parents were both over 21
[QUOTE]
[li]What is the highest level of education you have completed? [ul][]Less than high school []High school graduate []Some college []College graduate [*]Post-graduate degree[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
College graduate for both of them.
[QUOTE]
[li]Are you married? Yes/no.[/li][/QUOTE]
They were married.
[QUOTE]
[li]Have you ever been convicted of a felony?[/li][/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE]
[li]On average, how many alcoholic drinks do you consume during the week?[/li][ul][li]0-5[]5-10[]More than 10[/ul][/list][/li][/QUOTE]
Zero! Mormons!
The problem with my family was that my father was extremely abusive. Enough so, that it caused mental illness in a couple of my siblings. While some of factors listed here can contribute, child abuse can happen to all classes of people and all levels of education. It can happen with married people and nonfelons.
People who abuse children are going to lie on a test anyway so I really don’t see the point of one.
I’m sorry for what you endured, TokyoBayer. Thanks for sharing your story.
It’s fun to think about a test like this.
But all the questions and pamphlets and information and doctor’s instructions etc,etc can all be summed up in one sentence:
When the kid is 3-5 years old, at bedtime-- which story books will you read to him? How long will you hug him while reading to him?
If we’re going full on scary authoritarian bad idea, a simple financial test. Can you care (feed clothe shelter educate) for a child without taxpayer assistance? Yes? Then the doctors take out your contraceptive implant.
Of course I’d expect that to result in rather steep population decline. Revolution. Etc.
Since when is calling little white girls with assorted "Y"s dropped into their name because Mommy wanted a yoonique spelling racist?
I haven’t said anything like what you’re accusing me of. Not even in the same ballpark, and it’s a vile accusation.
I didn’t say the Mum’s kids should be taken away (I said I was glad it worked out for her), and I didn’t say poor people shouldn’t have kids. The income part was in a theoretical situation - that you cut off.
You are misrepresenting me in quite a vile way and I would like an apology.
Oh, do tell us how saying you’d go for a requirement that someone can only have kids if s/he “has enough money to sustain the family for a few months if they get laid off, or their back-ups agree to support them,” isn’t saying anything like “poor people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.” I’m very interested in your definition of “poor.”
You seem to think this is just some fanciful science fiction hypothetical. It’s not. Real children are really being taken away from their parents, today, in this world we’re living in. Some of the children being taken away shouldn’t be, and some who should be, aren’t. Holding and voicing classist (or racist, or sexist, or otherwise bigoted) opinions about how to recognize a good parent influences the process by encouraging calls to CPS for non-issues, which diverts resources from where they’re needed. It also influences the availability of taxpayer funds to help vs to merely punish. You’re welcome to voice your opinions anyway, but don’t expect not to be called out. And don’t hold your breath for an apology.
The OP was asking about a theoretical situation, not the real world. I don’t know if that’s what they intended, but having a licence to have kids is an inherently alternate world scenario, but it’s impossible in the real world. So I responded to the scifi scenario, with some caveats. Here’s the bit you cut off:
That is clearly not real life. (Though I should have specified universal and perfect contraception). These are not ways to recognise a good parent now.
I’m clearly not advocating people having their children taken away now - note that I said “no forced adoptions.” And I said I was glad that the woman you were talking about didn’t lose her kids, so it’s an outright lie for you to claim I want her kids taken away.
And I’m a disabled parent on a low income, so you can get off your high horse. Funny how it’s my post you’ve attacked and nobody else’s. Are you going to respond to them as angrily as you have to me?
I made it EXTREMELY clear that I was not talking about the world as it is now. In the world as it is now, social services fairly often gets it wrong, removing kids who should stay at home and leaving kids who shouldn’t, for a whole variety of reasons including negative prejudices about class, race and sexuality. But that’s a different thread topic.
The prejudices you’re voicing don’t stop being prejudices just because you insist this would only apply in a hypothetical scenario to prevent people having kids, as opposed to taking kids away.
I would opine that a psychological evaluation would be a good place to start, maybe identify some red flags that would say no, or areas that can and need to be improved and developed etc.
but after reading this transcript, now I’m less certain how effective or useful such an evaluation would actually be.
He flat out wrote that kids shouldn’t be taken away. Well before you jumped on him.
That said, “can you afford the results of this decision” is damn sound advice, not prejudice. And following it would alleviate far more suffering than questions about back seats or bathwater.