http://blogs.psychcentral.com/psychoanalysis-now/2015/01/should-parents-be-trained-and-licensed/
An interesting topic to be sure, considering how there are some people who have parents that aren’t really in any position to have them.
But even then, the logistics and implementation seem almost impossible.
That being said, should parents have to be screened/tested in order to have children.
Oh dear God, yes.
But as you point out, if you can conceive of a way to implement this, you would be the first.
Simply put, while the idea might be good, it seems like a nightmare to implement. Staff, standards, money, resources.
But then there is the matter of freedom. Telling people what they can and can’t do, when do the limits they impose stop.
Like I said, a nightmare to implement.
Trained / Licensed / Screened / Tested by whom? Bear in mind that many people don’t believe in the same things that you do (or even that I do, hard as that may be to believe).
It’s insane, a totalitarian idea. Giving the government the power to decide who can have kids is giving them the power to decide who deserves to exist. It would have the power to commit genocide, one generation removed.
Considering the current racial disparities in poverty and crime, not to mention the education that would be involved in obtaining a license, the likely result would be a genocide of black people, along with some other minorities in America. Not to mention the intellectually disabled. It would make Hitler proud.
Edit: And do you think a Republican administration would be willing to issue licenses to gay people?
This is a dumb idea, but possibly with a nugget of interest in there somewhere…
We pretty much have the ability to control most births. Outside of people who can’t use birth control for health reasons, theoretically, there shouldn’t be very many unintended children. I believe it is largely (but not exclusively) the “abstinence only” types who would object to doing what was necessary to make that a practical reality. That is, we’d need to put everyone - including boys when it’s feasible - on birth control at an early age.
Or at least make birth control so easily available and ubiquitous that there’s no reason anybody would be without it until they wanted to conceive.
Possibly do-able, but unfortunately won’t happen any time soon.
I understand the benefits of this, but it’s tyrannical; a totalitarian state. No.
http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/childabuse.html
Supposed “evidence” given by someone (on another board where I saw this debate). You have to scroll down halfway to see it.
But to be honest, this seems impossible, also slightly immoral. I mean there are children born in the world to people who are less than fit to be parents, but putting a lock on what people can do seems off. Also unlike what the evidence says, the solution is far from simple, more complex than can be imagined.
I’m sure the concept has crossed people’s minds before, but to implement it would be nothing short of impossible.
BUt some say that we need a license to operate a car and for pretty much most things, but not to be a parent. Then again, children aren’t cars.
No… Children are faaaaaar more important than cars.
Considering the massive overpopulation of the human race, the incidence of child abuse, neglect, abandonment, child pornography, sexual assault and molestation, anti vaxxers, polygamous cults, drug abusers, and straight up narcissitic, irresponsible assholes that all somehow manage to have children, it leaves me stunned and saddened that we allow someone to create and care for a human being with less training and oversight than we ask before they try to drive a car. Seriously. You can be so untrustworthy and inept that you aren’t allowed to operate a car, but we have no problem handing you a human being. That idea should scare the shit out of anyone, and anyone who knows or has dealt with abused children should agree that some people should just not ever be trusted with a child.
That said, it can’t be implemented for all the reasons thirdname brings up. There is just no way to guarantee that it would be implemented fairly, and no good way to actually enforce it, as China has demonstrated.
It would be cheaper and easier to educate people on birth control, also to educate people on just what it means to have a kid.
Education seems better than some arbitrary test. People seem to be for it, but I don’t think they understand what it truly means to enact such a thing (or if it’s possible).
So you want the government to decide who has the right to reproduce? And what should be the punishment for people who have unauthorized children? You, of course, being a right-thinking individual, assume the people in power are also right-thinking, but what happens when the big ugly OTHERS gain that same power, and prevent YOU from having kids?
Please remind me, exactly who won World War II?
As Dr. Becker would say “… but you need a license to sell real estate.”
I’m not exactly advocating it. I know how flawed this whole thing is. Between the consequences of implementing such a system and children growing up in abusive homes, we really are caught in between a rock and a hard place.
So then why are you bring it up? You’re not going to get a good reaction from folks here to what we commonly referred to as “Just Asking Questions”. If you have a a position, state it and back it up.
I’m saying that there is an issue of child abuse in the country. That children who grow up in these homes don’t tend to fair very well in society.
Something has to be done, but it seems like solutions are too complex to implement.
Child abuse is illegal, and parents are routinely prosecuted for abusing children. No law is perfect, and maybe that’s a feature, not a bug (of a free, democratic country). Which countries can you think of that are best at enforcing laws strictly?
But just be clear: No, “something” doesn’t have to be done. Especially if the cure is worse than the disease. Licensing parents is a complete non-starter. Perhaps you can think of some other, more practical methods or dealing with this problem if you think it’s so important.
Ever heard of something called “eugenics”?
I’m new to Straight Dope, old (81); and feel like I must come across as a flamer or troller to many participants here. I try to be neither. But I’m not collectivist, do not think like a collectivist, and should probably be limiting my participation mainly to anarchist-leaning boards. With that I’ll post my response by reproducing a comment I made just this morning:
The human family is the only legitimate ruling class. Having no skills in “anarchist theory” to predict just how, in a totally free society, inept or unfit parenting will be dealt, I’ll have to plead faith in liberty. I have faith that, once the malicious hand of that evil abstraction, “the state”, is finally and irrevocably severed, family resolution will succeed.
I do know the nature of the human newborn (father of 7, grandpa of soon-to-be 26) and the love and devotion of natural parents.
The human newborn comes into being totally, 100%, dependent upon adult caregivers – hopefully loving and dedicated Mums & Dad’s. Family Law. Tiny babies are bereft of that phenomenon we refer to as “instinct” when thinking of “the animal kingdom”. Each skill and virtue must be learned – until that time that, when parents become elderly and neurodegenerate, the children sit on the bench of family law; at which time they will provide governance to and for the parents.
Central political “authority” is the adulteration of legitimate government.
Sam
Sorry if that comes across as too strong for the tastes of this forum.
Sam
If I was the God-Emperor of the Universe, yes.
But in practical terms ? No. Not even funny. As far as I’m aware, the only cats who tried it were the Chinese with the One Child Policy - it was spottily enforced at best in actuality and led to god only knows how much strife and heartbreak among the people who really were subjected to it. No way. People (and children) get fucked up either way.
The better course of action is uprising people out of the slums. Then not only will they be able to take care of their kids ; they won’t have them to find a reason to go on either, much less as a scheme to bring money to the household (as has been the case for time immemorial). But of course, trying to eliminate poverty altogether is soshulism and bad and Wrong ;).
I’m in agreement. Unfortunately, the level of skill required to have children is very low, certainly lower than the level of skill needed to raise children.
Not the same thing. You could have children with “perfect” DNA and be an unfit parent. Eugenics proponents wouldn’t care. Alternatively, you could be a very good parent whose children have an unfortunate genetic condition. This idea would not impact such parents, but the eugenics proponents would be unhappy with this.
Not that I care what eugenics proponents want.
Some of these disorders may have a genetic component but not all, and the objective is not trying to prevent them from breeding. I’d be more interested in mandatory training, with those unable to pass, regardless of reason, not being allowed to raise children.
Of course, this is all very theoretical. In a way, there is a license, see here where a woman had several children removed: Pregnant woman steals identity to give birth in Walsall - BBC News
I couldn’t find the link where a woman had had 17 children removed, one after the other, so she had clearly not gotten her license to have children. (They didn’t take away the license to breed in either case. I’ve never heard of that thing in the recent era. They take their license to raise children instead.)