License To Parent?

[Quintium]

So you didn't think it was your job to help these kids, even though you believed they were neglected?

No, I don't think it's my job. In addition, I can't help this many people.
All I can do is help think of a way to make sure it doesn't happen to another generation next time.

Only rich folks should be allowed to have children? Or at the very least, however many they want too, but not poor folks?

If your financial situation is at the expense of your children's wellbeing, then I think it's no more than reasonable to expect of you that, at the very least, you don't have even more children. If, in addition to that, you have to depend on the state for your income and survival, then you should think very long before considering having more children. Unfortunately, with a welfare state that's more a hammock than a safety net, it doesn't really matter. A lot of these people buy designer handbags using welfare, because they know others will pay for their kids. I know of one example where someone replaced a school's cook, gave food to some hungry kids in the morning, and was soon swamped by the children of single mothers and 'poor' families with BMWs.

It's very much a matter of priorities. You can easily feed and raise a child on welfare in this country, but if you fail to do even that, it's completely your own fault.

[The USOT]

What does that have to do with your initial statement that you would not trust politicians to evaluate your parenting ability? You cant adopt without going through that process.

Er, I must be misunderstanding you somewhere, or perhaps I'm not communicating clearly...

The fact that I see nothing wrong with adoption, and I might consider adoption if I wanted to parent, does not reflect confidence in the adoption system. I believe I would be given custody of a child even though I shouldn't be given it. Thus, I do not trust the adoption system to evaluate my ability to parent.

Similarly, I do not trust any politician to evaluate my ability to parent.

No the fault was on my end. I equated "not trust" with "not consider". My apologies, and fair enough.

[The Parkus Empire]

Because giving kids away to people you don't know is irresponsible, from a government or personal view. When you have custody of a child, that child is your responsibility, and by extension it is your responsibility to see that if custody is transferred, it is transferred to someone who will be a good parent.

So its more the ethics of giving away the child rather than actually the one holding it?

Yes.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Because giving kids away to people you don't know is irresponsible, from a government or personal view. When you have custody of a child, that child is your responsibility, and by extension it is your responsibility to see that if custody is transferred, it is transferred to someone who will be a good parent.

Isn't it also irresponsible to be a parent but not be a good one? Shouldn't the government make (it more likely that they're) sure someone will be a good parent before they can be a parent?

[The Devilz Advocate]

Do you trust adoption agencies to evaluate the ability of prospective adoptive parents to parent?

Not really.

I think they are better than nothing, but the system in my country (USA) is actually kind of fucked up. It's also grossly inconsistent from state to state; the same couple would be considered "unfit" in some states but "fit" in others.

Should the system be standardized across states? Should this process involve scaling back closer to the most permissive state, or becoming closer to the strictest one?

[Qahadim]

The difference between a privilege, and a right.

Ok then. Why is that a right, and why is it not a right to adopt a child without proving oneself fit?

Do I, or do I not have bodily sovereignty? If I do, that's what makes bearing children a right. Adoption is a privilege, being denied does not violate the sovereignty if my choice to do with my body as I please. If I don't have bodily sovereignty, I can't really help you.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Yes this could totally not be used by racists to limit the number of non-White children born, or by people who hate the poor by limiting the number of children born into poor or middle-class families, or by people who only want Christian/X-Religion babies or any other means of corruption.

And of course it's totally not a violation of their bodily rights to suggest what people can and cannot do with their bodies or to forcibly sterilize them.

[Qahadim]

Lying on the application? Again, just because the parents of the adopted are later found to be neglectful doesn't make the adoption illegal, just void.

Lying about something such as one's income?

Which raises the point that if the government was as infallible as you're hoping they are, adopted kids would never end up neglected or abused.

Nobody's claiming infallibility, merely that the government is less fallible.

lastly, adoption is a privilege, not a right. Naturally bearing children, on the other hand, is a right.

Why would adoption be less of a right than raising one's biological child?

Yes, that would be one example, but it's not the only one. Why do I get three feeling this is some kind of leading question?

Lol, wut? Less fallible? Ok, whatever you say there chum.

Bodily sovereignty.

[Fartsniffage]

I'd love there to be licences for parents. But then I think about how it could reasonably be implemented and the only way I can think of is an honour system where people agree not to have kids until they get the licence. And then I realise that if that were ever to work then everyone would have to show the kind of personal responsibility that would make them good candidates to be parents in the first place......

In short, a nice idea but totally impractical.

[Bottle]

Ok then. Why is that a right, and why is it not a right to adopt a child without proving oneself fit?

Do I, or do I not have bodily sovereignty? If I do, that's what makes bearing children a right. Adoption is a privilege, being denied does not violate the sovereignty if my choice to do with my body as I please. If I don't have bodily sovereignty, I can't really help you.

You seem to be assuming that bearing a child equals parenting a child.

I don't think others are making that assumption.

[Bottle]

Not really.

I think they are better than nothing, but the system in my country (USA) is actually kind of fucked up. It's also grossly inconsistent from state to state; the same couple would be considered "unfit" in some states but "fit" in others.

Should the system be standardized across states? Should this process involve scaling back closer to the most permissive state, or becoming closer to the strictest one?

It's not just a matter of strictness, IMO. For instance, we have agencies which are very strict about who they will permit to adopt, in that queers need not apply. That's not a kind of strictness I dig.

I think the entire system needs a major overhaul, and we also need to massively increase funding for child protective services, foster care programs, and so forth. One of the main problems is that too many of the people making decisions about legality of adoption are NOT qualified experts in child welfare, psychology, or any relevant field.

[The Serbian Empire]

But to politicians it sure seems to be an instruction manual to how to oppress citizens and keep themselves in power.

No it doesn't, don't be ridiculous.

Why else would the NSA have been recording time details of people? It probably isn't for the personal pleasure of a few guys in a dark room in the Pentagon is it?

[Olthar]

I suppose in many respects, a license to parent would make sense for the sake of protecting children from less-than-acceptable lives, and I wouldn't particularly oppose such a concept, but it does have some prickly issues involved. Specifically, there's really no ethical way to impose such a thing without violating bodily sovereignty. Thus, I don't particularly support such a concept.

[Nazi Flower Power]

In the United States, and perhaps in most countries, there is a process that prospective parents need to go through in order to adopt a child. The adoptive parents need to actively prove that they have the ability to parent the child they seek to adopt. Biological childrearing, on the other hand, does not require this; a parent is assumed to be fit until proven otherwise.
Should this be the case? Are biological children less important than adoptive children? I say no. All parents should have to actively demonstrate that they have the ability to parent. Fertility is not a sufficient qualification.

Lots of problems with that -- strain on social services, dealing with the riots when people get upset about their kids being taken, etc.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Yes this could totally not be used by racists to limit the number of non-White children born,

Maybe if (unfit) non-white parents are choosing to not reproduce because they know they won't be able to keep the children. Otherwise, there would be no reduction in the number of children born.

And of course it's totally not a violation of their bodily rights to suggest what people can and cannot do with their bodies or to forcibly sterilize them.

It is. This is, however, not what the OP is suggesting.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Lying about something such as one's income?

Yes, that would be one example, but it's not the only one. Why do I get three feeling this is some kind of leading question?

If adoptive parents need to have a minimum income in order to adopt, then biological parents should also need a minimum income.

Why would adoption be less of a right than raising one's biological child?

Bodily sovereignty.

What does bodily sovereignty have to do with a child that's no longer inside of a person's body?

[The Devilz Advocate]

It's not just a matter of strictness, IMO. For instance, we have agencies which are very strict about who they will permit to adopt, in that queers need not apply. That's not a kind of strictness I dig.

I think the entire system needs a major overhaul, and we also need to massively increase funding for child protective services, foster care programs, and so forth. One of the main problems is that too many of the people making decisions about legality of adoption are NOT qualified experts in child welfare, psychology, or any relevant field.

This seems reasonable. I think you've said this, but I want to clarify, that biological parents should be judged as harshly as potential adoptive parents. Is my understanding correct?

[The Devilz Advocate]

I suppose in many respects, a license to parent would make sense for the sake of protecting children from less-than-acceptable lives, and I wouldn't particularly oppose such a concept, but it does have some prickly issues involved. Specifically, there's really no ethical way to impose such a thing without violating bodily sovereignty. Thus, I don't particularly support such a concept.

You could implement it by saying that people can reproduce however much they like (keeping bodily sovereignty intact) but that they should not expect to take the baby home from the hospital until they can prove fitness.

[Wintersun]

In the United States, and perhaps in most countries, there is a process that prospective parents need to go through in order to adopt a child. The adoptive parents need to actively prove that they have the ability to parent the child they seek to adopt. Biological childrearing, on the other hand, does not require this; a parent is assumed to be fit until proven otherwise.
Should this be the case? Are biological children less important than adoptive children? I say no. All parents should have to actively demonstrate that they have the ability to parent. Fertility is not a sufficient qualification.

Well I mean I see your point but how about no? Now let's say you want to enter your child into any publicly funded school or apply for something like WIC, then you should be required to take a test, be observed, etc. to proof you are a good parent. No teacher should have to teach a kid their ABC's without you doing your job as a parent and helping to teach them nor should they have to deal with little hellions because you cannot properly discipline your kid. With things like WIC the program couldn't be as strenuous as the child needs food, but at the very least the parent should be required to take a test regarding manners and how to care for children as nobody deserves to put up with the parents being assholes while they're paying for them to get food such as in a grocery store. Basically act right or privately fund your little bastard.

[Saiwania]

Yes this could totally not be used by racists to limit the number of non-White children born, or by people who hate the poor by limiting the number of children born into poor or middle-class families, or by people who only want Christian/X-Religion babies or any other means of corruption.

I'm a racist who isn't interested in that, all of the racial groups are separate but equal in their own special way and have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Well I mean I see your point but how about no? Now let's say you want to enter your child into any publicly funded school or apply for something like WIC, then you should be required to take a test, be observed, etc. to proof you are a good parent. No teacher should have to teach a kid their ABC's without you doing your job as a parent and helping to teach them nor should they have to deal with little hellions because you cannot properly discipline your kid. With things like WIC the program couldn't be as strenuous as the child needs food, but at the very least the parent should be required to take a test regarding manners and how to care for children as nobody deserves to put up with the parents being assholes while they're paying for them to get food such as in a grocery store. Basically act right or privately fund your little bastard.

Should adoptive parents who aren't seeking public aid need to prove fitness?

[Wintersun]

Well I mean I see your point but how about no? Now let's say you want to enter your child into any publicly funded school or apply for something like WIC, then you should be required to take a test, be observed, etc. to proof you are a good parent. No teacher should have to teach a kid their ABC's without you doing your job as a parent and helping to teach them nor should they have to deal with little hellions because you cannot properly discipline your kid. With things like WIC the program couldn't be as strenuous as the child needs food, but at the very least the parent should be required to take a test regarding manners and how to care for children as nobody deserves to put up with the parents being assholes while they're paying for them to get food such as in a grocery store. Basically act right or privately fund your little bastard.

Should adoptive parents who aren't seeking public aid need to prove fitness?

To an extent. If they're racist and they're looking to adopt a minority baby I'd want someone looking into that just to be on the safe side, but they should cut back on the screening quite a bit. If the parent's aren't criminals, at least one has a job, and they have plans for baby proofing where they live then they should have a chance.

[Olthar]

I suppose in many respects, a license to parent would make sense for the sake of protecting children from less-than-acceptable lives, and I wouldn't particularly oppose such a concept, but it does have some prickly issues involved. Specifically, there's really no ethical way to impose such a thing without violating bodily sovereignty. Thus, I don't particularly support such a concept.

You could implement it by saying that people can reproduce however much they like (keeping bodily sovereignty intact) but that they should not expect to take the baby home from the hospital until they can prove fitness.

That's still rather ethically problematic as the US foster care system is already overburdened. It simply couldn't handle such a large influx, and even if its budget was raised significantly, I don't think it's actually possible for any foster care system to handle that many parentless children.

[Qahadim]

Do I, or do I not have bodily sovereignty? If I do, that's what makes bearing children a right. Adoption is a privilege, being denied does not violate the sovereignty if my choice to do with my body as I please. If I don't have bodily sovereignty, I can't really help you.

You seem to be assuming that bearing a child equals parenting a child.

I don't think others are making that assumption.

The entire basis of the original argument of the OP, which USOT was arguing on advocacy was the ability to have, not raise, children.

[Qahadim]

Yes, that would be one example, but it's not the only one. Why do I get three feeling this is some kind of leading question?

If adoptive parents need to have a minimum income in order to adopt, then biological parents should also need a minimum income.

Bodily sovereignty.

What does bodily sovereignty have to do with a child that's no longer inside of a person's body?

Except, to my knowledge, denial of adoption is not based on income alone. Poor =/= unfit parents.

Absolutely nothing, but your original premise was the parents needing a license to have, not raise children. I'm not going to indulge your attempt of moving the goal post to suit your own argument.