Should parents be trained an licensed?

[Machinaforce]

@Kimera757

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.)

But wouldn’t the implementation be practically impossible though?

[Machinaforce]

@Kobal2

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 ;).

The biggest issue seems to be the practicality of it. There are too many factors in the mix for there to be anything simple.

[marshmallow]

Across various internet communities, whenever a topic like “post your edgiest opinions” pops up it seems the most popular one tends to be a mix of eugenics, parental licensing, and population control, as per the OP. People seem concerned that the wrong types of people are breeding.

[Machinaforce]

@marshmallow

Across various internet communities, whenever a topic like “post your edgiest opinions” pops up it seems the most popular one tends to be a mix of eugenics, parental licensing, and population control, as per the OP. People seem concerned that the wrong types of people are breeding.

It’s not that, it’s to stop people who shouldn’t be parents from having kids, preventing child abuse, and in turn the consequences child abuse has on adult life, which can impact society.

[Kimera757]

@Machinaforce

But wouldn’t the implementation be practically impossible though?

Yes, this is why I say it’s theoretical.

There actually is a procedure to “take away the license to raise children”, that would be having children’s aid take the children away, but there’s many cases where that is not done.

[marshmallow]

@Machinaforce

It’s not that, it’s to stop people who shouldn’t be parents from having kids, preventing child abuse, and in turn the consequences child abuse has on adult life, which can impact society.

Sounds like hair splitting to me. You want to control who can have children to improve society. From your linked article:

By doing so, we might be able to weed out those parents who suffer from severe cases schizophrenia, sociopathic personality, borderline personality, drug addiction or major depression—disorders whose severity would likely lead to problematic parenting.

It’s saying these people shouldn’t breed. Or maybe they could breed, but their children should be taken away. Do you disagree?

Most people think having children is a sacred right, but it’s easy to move past that if you don’t believe in the sacred. Bringing children into the world is fairly dubious anyway, morally speaking.

[ITR_champion]

@Machinaforce

http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/childabuse.html

You know, the SDMB and the internet have changed a lot since I first came here in 2001. That was the early days of the internet, when a lot of conspiracy nuts, freaks, and crazies were spewing their beliefs all over personal web pages, without regard to whether it would make the least bit of sense and without using any professional developer to pretty up their web page. We had a lot of freewheeling debates back then, and a lot of links were posted to wonderfully bizarre stuff. Over time, as Facebook and WordPress took over the internet, things got standardized and we got lot more normal links and a lot fewer of the utterly strange and entertaining ones.

Well, this link that you posted here is definitely a throwback to the old days.

[Guinastasia]

Fuck, double post

[Guinastasia]

@Kimera757

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.

Who decides who gets to be a parent and who doesn’t? You honestly can’t tell me this won’t lead to weeding out “undesireables” being denied the right to be a parent? :dubious:

@Machinaforce

It’s not that, it’s to stop people who shouldn’t be parents from having kids, preventing child abuse, and in turn the consequences child abuse has on adult life, which can impact society.

This is extremely chilling. How do you predict who will abuse their child and who won’t?

[Machinaforce]

@Guinastasia

Who decides who gets to be a parent and who doesn’t? You honestly can’t tell me this won’t lead to weeding out “undesireables” being denied the right to be a parent? :dubious:

This is extremely chilling. How do you predict who will abuse their child and who won’t?

Apparently a group of qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools.

[John_Mace]

@Machinaforce

Apparently a group of qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools.

So, you are in favor of the proposal. I thought you weren’t.

[Velocity]

As I understand it, plenty of abusive people are outwardly charming, high earners, outwardly successful, outwardly stable, educated, seemingly good-natured, highly intelligent, outwardly respectable folks. Are the licensing psych tests really accurate enough to discern the abusers from non-abusers?

[Machinaforce]

@Velocity

As I understand it, plenty of abusive people are charming, high earners, outwardly successful, stable, seemingly good-natured, highly intelligent, respectable folks. Are the licensing psych tests really deft enough to discern the abusers from non-abusers?

The second link shows the “model” that someone proposed. You have to scroll down about half way.

Apparently it features an extensive background history and psychological evaluation of people. Just see the link, there’s a list.

[Velocity]

A couple more thoughts:

1. This law would be an absolute PR nightmare. “Parents Jailed for Having Kids Without Permission” as a headline?

2. What about couples who are already pregnant before getting licensed?

3. How to ensure this doesn’t turn into a tool of oppression eugenics? What if one of the psychiatrists doesn’t want to see more Christians or Hispanics or blondes or Muslims and so secretly disqualifies such parents as “unfit?”

[Blake]

@Machinaforce

Apparently a group of qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools.

Would these be the “qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools” who legitimised repressed memory syndrome and Satanic Panic 20 years ago?

Or the “qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools” who were so convinced that gender identity is learned that they forced intersex or mutilated children into being “boys” or “girls” 30 years ago?

Or the “qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools” who colluded with the CIA to torture tens of thousands of people just 10 years ago?

Or the “qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools” who were quite convinced that Black people were inherently less intelligent just 60 years ago?

Given their histories of legitimising social prejudices and the weakness of the science underlying their professions, I have no faith at all in psychologists to make decisions of this kind.

[Kimera757]

@Guinastasia

Who decides who gets to be a parent and who doesn’t? You honestly can’t tell me this won’t lead to weeding out “undesireables” being denied the right to be a parent? :dubious:

The children’s aid societies, organizations that currently exist in American (and other country) laws, make decisions like this all the time. They’re already weeing out “undesirable” parents.

Sometimes these decisions are controversial. In Canada, sometimes kids are taken from parents due to neglect because they live in “squalor” (meaning the parents can’t afford much rent as they prioritized food for their kids) or hunger (meaning the parents can’t pay much for food as they want to be able to pay rent and not render their kids homeless). However, taking kids away from drug-addicted parents sparks much less controversy.

[Velocity]

@marshmallow

People seem concerned that the wrong types of people are breeding.

@Machinaforce

It’s not that, it’s to stop people who shouldn’t be parents from having kids

Isn’t this exactly what **marshmallow **is pointing out? :dubious:

[Machinaforce]

@Blake

Would these be the “qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools” who legitimised repressed memory syndrome and Satanic Panic 20 years ago?

Or the “qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools” who were so convinced that gender identity is learned that they forced intersex or mutilated children into being “boys” or “girls” 30 years ago?

Or the “qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools” who colluded with the CIA to torture tens of thousands of people just 10 years ago?

Or the “qualified psychologists from developmental psychology and other schools” who were quite convinced that Black people were inherently less intelligent just 60 years ago?

Given their histories of legitimising social prejudices and the weakness of the science underlying their professions, I have no faith at all in psychologists to make decisions of this kind.

That I don’t know, but just look at the link. Like I said, someone gave that as a model.

[Blake]

@Kimera757

The children’s aid societies, organizations that currently exist in American (and other country) laws, make decisions like this all the time. They’re already weeing out “undesirable” parents.

Sometimes these decisions are controversial. In Canada, sometimes kids are taken from parents due to neglect because they live in “squalor” (meaning the parents can’t afford much rent as they prioritized food for their kids) or hunger (meaning the parents can’t pay much for food as they want to be able to pay rent and not render their kids homeless). However, taking kids away from drug-addicted parents sparks much less controversy.

One the one hand we have people looking at objective evidence and deciding that a parent is not providing sufficient shelter or food to child.

On the other hand we have someone looking at subjective testimony and deciding that at some future point the parent will not prove sufficient shelter or clothing to child.

Do you not see a gulf between those two scenarios?

When organisations currently make decisions like this all the time, they are evaluating what a person *has *done. That is usually fairly easy to ascertain. As you point out, the reasons why someone failed to provide a child with food or shelter might be open to debate, but the fact that they *did fail *rarely is.

What is being proposed is evaluating future crime. Having psychologists decide that a person will, at some future point, fail to adequately care for a child.

Do you honestly think that one is as easy to determine as the other?

[Blake]

@Machinaforce

That I don’t know, but just look at the link. Like I said, someone gave that as a model.

We are not here to discuss a link. We are here to debate other real people.

If you think this is a valid method of deciding who should be sterilised, then you need to defend that point.

If you don’t think it is a valid method, then you why bother to make the point?

And if, as it appears, you have no interest in discussing in the point at all, then maybe you should ask for this to be moved to another forum.