License To Have Kids

My first thought when seeing this thread? Not every parent should be required to get a license to have a child. There are some rather horrible parents who should undergo some sort of class simply because they can't raise a child properly.

But, more importantly, we cannot have some kind of requirement where a parent takes a class before becoming a parent. And there is one simple reason. The mindset of today's government (I'm assuming that's who would be running these classes) would not allow for proper education. The people in charge don't seem to understand discipline. They seem to believe a simple spanking is child abuse. If a class such as this were to work, it would need to teach the parents to grow a pair and discipline their child, not let the child walk all over them.

Well, coming from a divorced family, perhaps I can answer your question. At some point, the court system gives a child a bit more of an oppinion. Once the child has reached a certain age (I believe it is somewhere between 14 and 16), the courts will allow the child to choose which parent they want to live with. Unless one of the parents has a damn good lawyer and forces the child into a specific parent's custody. Younger children, on the other hand, are not deemed mature enough to decide. So the court decides which parent is best. And, as a side note, courts seem to have more support for the mother than the father, even if the father is a bit better than the mother.

I'm always willing to debate. The problem is that at some point, people just stop.

 

I see all these points and highly agree with them all. Something should be done.

Especially now a days, back when there was always a parent at home watching over the kid, now a days you got now and then nobody at home with a little 4 year old. Something should be done by that.

I agree with the sort of background check thing, maybe it should be done through the child's school. You do get people doing home visits when the child misses so many days of school, but that doesn't help much.

So many kids are getting beaten now a days, it's ridiculous. The classes may help those or it may not. For those it doesn't help disciplinary action by the state should be taken.

But to all of that, yes someone should do occassional home visits or have one on one time with a child.


Now for the liscense, as it is impossible to do anything with, something should be done with it. Perhaps getting a liscense to have a child would help with the teenage pregnancies happening so often now a days. Maybe not, but if liscense will help some then so be it, it should be done.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head Toph: there are certain people who have no business procreating. So this notion of getting a license, attractive or not, would be an attempt at mitigating this problem. Well as in any discussion, it's valuable to consider the pros and cons of such an implementation. I'm going to take the 'con' stance in this post.

1) The biggest flaw I can see with such a system is that 'licensing' requirements don't always indicate who makes the best candidate. ie. Does the student who gets 99% in french know french better than the student who gets 92%? I can think of many examples to contradict the notion of a grade being proportional to someone's qualifications.

Another example is Med School...often times people with the highest grades (ie. those who get in) have social issues and have a terrible bedside manner. Conversely those who 'fail' to get in may have better social experiences and in turn would make excellent doctors (in many cases, better than those who got in easily).

So what I mean is, many parents who don't know anything about parenting may end up passing the test, while other who would be loving, dear parents could fail the test and not be "allowed" to procreate.

----------------------

2) Who would administer the testing process? Does the government truly have the right to dictate what a 'good parent' is? Does anyone really have this right?

----------------------

3) Procreation goes hand in hand with sex, naturally. So taking away one's right to procreation is (ie. should be) taking away their right to sex. I'd like to see something like this become socially accepted, haha. In all honesty, when posed with this notion of people not having business procreating, I think most of these people fall into the 'have no business sleeping around' category as well.

----------------------

In short, I'm of the opinion that anyone willing to take a course/test to prove their willingness as a parent will make a half-decent one regardless. The problem lies amongst those who are unprepared/unwilling to have children, but have them anyway. These cases will essentially slip through the cracks of any 'licensing system' and continue to remain a serious issue.

As such, I feel such a system would do more harm than good.

 

i think they should have to take a test before having kids and also show their not biased and not going to brainwash theire kids. a friend of mine has parents that brainwashed him with religion and he still feels guilty about geting laid or drinking his gf slept around and does drugs but she loves him and hes worried his parents wont acsept her cus their too moralistic

i think if ppl have strong morals they shouldnt have kids or should have to take a test so they cant force their morals. maybe the goverment can send police to see if their going to brainwash their kids. also its not just parents that raise kids its schools so if u want to avoid big problems maybe we can make sure schools have a stronger role so that even when parents abuse their kids the school can step in and find out and remove bad influances. but yea u should have to take a test and even ppl that dont the schools should step in always.

 

Wow... Never quite heard an opinion like that. What you're suggesting is going into a totalitarian government. And when was it a bad thing to have morals? Raising somebody up to have high morals isn't a bad thing and it isn't brainwashing. Personally, I think it is better that people have stronger morals.

 

yea u have a good point there lol what i mean is maybe we can reach a compramise like its okay to be moralistic but u cant force them on your kids. i mean if parents arent brainwashing their kids or rasing them with their own morals they shouldn't be afraid of police right? its not totalitarian if its used for good

so its not a bad thing to have morals just remember everything thinks different its all relative so dont go forcing ur morals on ur own kids...cus that may wind up hurting them in the future...and if anything leave it to democracy and the majority to dicide whats right instead of just parents cus parents are just ppl they can make mistakes...and they can also repress...

so how is it up to u to choose what morals ur kids will have if morals are all relative. it isnt. so its child abuse and just like u wouldnt want ppl hitting babies or throwing them u dont want them ruining ur mind...right? just like hurting the body hurting the mind can affect a person for life.

 

What would make you think that they would brainwash kids? Wouldn't that be called "Being raised/taught" by your parents in that lifestyle?

 

Children are impressionable. When is being yourself suddenly forcing something on your kids. If that's the case, then my parents forced me to be the way I am. If simply raising kids is forcing them to have high morals, then nobody should have kids.

Police have no right to interfere with how people raise their children unless they abuse the kids.

Totalitarism is totalitarism.

Your logic is completely flawed. First off, morals cannot hurt people in the future. Here are 11 definitions of the word moral.

Teaching someone right and wrong is not damaging to them.

Teaching children right and wrong is not mental abuse. Mental abuse consists of things that lower self-esteem and stuff. Giving people morals is not mental abuse.

 

OK SRY no need to be mad at me. im jus tsaying since theres no such thing as right or wrong if u try and force ideas on kids since parents can hurt them it damages them.

like ok if i just share my morals with u im just talking so it doesnt harm u. but if ur dad does he can hit u so u feel forced to think like him. i just think parents taking their kids to church when they dont wanna go is child abuse because they dont have a voice its like slavery.

im not trying to cause problems its just opinion anyway. agree to disagree but i think no one should have kids unless they pass the tests and are made by the government to not force religion or morals. so this is part of why we need the tests so much.

 

May I also give out a fact that Toph also have a career in teaching (You are a teacher? Are you Toph?). Anyways, it has been four years since my grandmommy and mommy had took care of my two cousins ever since they ended up in DCFS (Don't ask. You have no reason to know.). Have a lot of ups and downs.

Should there ever be a license to have kids: I really can't say but I think that it would make some people debate that this take away their rights as a parent and the rights of responsibility.

 

OK debate huh i get let me try

first u say who decides what is good well very good question i was asking the same thing. i take back what i said about totalitarian tho because i kno there is no right and wrong. so is it up to the parents to decide what is good. i took back my contradiction now u can take back yours.

if its not up to anyone to decide what is good then parents shoud not force views on kids. so what im saying is this.

1. telling kids to followw the law makes sense

its for their own self preservation or as some say rational self intrest. they want to stay alive then follow the law. the law is things like dont kill dont steal so its ok for parents to teach their kids this BECAUS if they want to survive and not go to tjail they will not do this.

2. anything else is wrong to teach bewcause it is brainwashing

so when a parent is a christian. lets say they want to teach their kids black ppl are not equal to whites. ARE U OKAY WITH THIS. no of course not.

so now lets say its less extreme. they tell their kid if u have sex before marriage u will go to hell. doesn't this also do damage?! YES!!! thinking for ur whole life that u will go to hell if u dont do EXACTLY what ur parents tell you to DAMAGES U. it makes u not do certain things IT IS BRAINWASHING.

u call the government checking on these ppl totalitarian but do u stop to think about how repressive this is. so when i say strong morals what i mean is ppl who believe in right and wrong and FORCE THAT ON THEIR KIDS. if someone believes in right and wrong then they should be supervised BECAUSE THEY CAN CAUSE damage. even just saying kid ur a bad person if u do drugs without saying they will go to hell causes a complex.

o also at least with the government there are COMUNITY STANDARDS which is the only way we can measure good and bad.at least then there will be a smart reason for parents to teach their kids certain things and it wont be just forcing their views, there will be rational self-intrest

 

Society.

And yet later down in your post you say that things parents decide is good isn't good. And a previous post you say good and bad aren't definantly set things.

I may have misunderstood you, but lemme see if I got this right. Basically, point 1 is saying that parents should teach their children self preservation. Which makes sense (Until you get into the details of it. But I'll save that for later). And in point 2, you said teaching anything else (Anything besides self preservation) is wrong and brainwashing. In that case, teaching somebody math, english, science, or anything not related to self preservation is brainwashing. In that case, myself and everybody else I know has been brainwashed since we were 5 years old.

And as for the self preservation. Teaching people self preservation is not wrong, by your logic, because it helps them stay alive. But, what if somebody had some disease where they had to eat human flesh? I know that is an extreme example, but just roll with it to get my point across. Clearly, eating human flesh cannot be wrong for that person because they are staying alive. But, by any sane person's standard, killing somebody and eating them is a very wrong thing. So your logic is clearly messed up. Unless of course I misunderstood you.

Because Christains are all racists (I know that there are some extreme Christains who are, but the moderate Christain most likely isn't).

Personally? I don't really care. So I suppose I am. Simply because I don't care.

It doesn't do damage. It isn't brainwashing. By telling your child that having premarital sex will result in you going to hell is a severe way of trying to have yoru child grow up to be a good child. Hell, if I have children I'm probably gonna tell them that they're allergic to weed just so they don't somke pot. Again, that isn't damaging. It is just taking extremes to make sure your child doesn't do things that society views as bad.

How is government not checking on people and forcing them to do things repressive? In case that sentence is worded strangely, lemme re-word it. How is it repressive to have a government that is less repressive? If government had the power to decide if people are or aren't allowed to have children, would you not consider that extremely repressive. Heck, in the book 1984, I think the goverment was trying to do something like that, decide who can have children and who can't. Oh, and in case you're wondering, the government in 1984 is probably the worst government that can possibly exist.

If that was the case, the majority of the people would have to be supervised. Which, again, leads to totalitarian government.

12 hours a day? Isn't that a little extreme for a school? All my pre-college school was 7 hours a day at most. And even in college, my longest day is only 10 hours.

 

Hahahahahahahahaha.I can't stop laughing at this statement.

Anways, 12 hours a day is not extreme. 7 hours are averaged but for teachers, it may be longer. You have to count on meetings and school activities that the teachers may be attending or are over. This is also vice-versa for the children. I had to stay at the high school a couple of times from 8:10a.m.-9:00p.m. because I am in many activities and that there are clubs that require my attention.

It is a parents responsibility to make sure that a child are learning the right way. Desert lying to his children that his children are allergic to weed may be the wrong action to take but it may or may not make the child change their mind. If Desert were to approach them differently and say "This is a picture to show what would happen to those who do many bad things and smoke bad things that could affect their health.", it may be a funny way to do it but this would also show that he is taking his care for his kids the correct way.