License To Parent?

[Dilange]

Why?

[Nazis in Space]

I seem to recall programs going loosely in this direction - limiting reproductive rights - in Peru and Israel having a curious tendency to be specifically targeting minorities.

A sneaky way to get rid of the negro population by deliberately targeting people of lower socio-economic status, I guess.

[Imperializt Russia]

Children are a privilege!

No. I have a right to bear children. No amount of licensing changes what is my natural right.

Once again, he isnt saying that under this system you could not bear children. Just that you could not keep them once they have spawned from you if you proved unfit.

Now childrearing may be a natural right. But the question of where we draw the line between an inherrant right of access to child rearing through biological means and one that appears lacking through adoptive means.

Squirting out kids for the sole purpose of surrendering them to the state sounds more irresponsible than just letting unfit parents squirt out kids.
That could easily lead to the state rage-sterilising supposed unfit parents who do that.

I seem to recall programs going loosely in this direction - limiting reproductive rights - in Peru and Israel having a curious tendency to be specifically targeting minorities.

A sneaky way to get rid of the negro population by deliberately targeting people of lower socio-economic status, I guess.

Maybe they're trying to reverse the trend as-is that whites will become a national minority in a decade or two.

[Lemanrussland]

No, just no. Creating yet another massive, invasive bureaucracy with a solution looking for a problem is not a good idea.

Most of the developed nations do not have a huge orphan problem (not anything compared to the third world), nor do they have a overpopulation problem (if anything, they need to boost population growth as much as they can in order to counter the aging of their populations, which will put stress on their social security and healthcare systems).

[Wind in the Willows]

1984 was not an instruction manual.

Good movie and book though.

[Bottle]

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?

Certainly. Blood relation is not a qualification.

As far as I can see, being good at achieving fertilization of an egg does not correlate in any way with a man's parenting skills. Being good at carrying a healthy pregnancy to term may correlate weakly with a woman's parenting skills, in the sense that a woman who is willing and able to take the relevant steps to care for a pregnancy may be better equipped to take similar steps regarding the care of an infant, but there are just too many confounding variables (fertility issues, our broken healthcare system in which being poor means being sick without recourse, women's healthcare in particular being under constant and vicious attack, the fact that pregnancy last 9 months and parenting lasts a lifetime, etc.).

[Bottle]

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.

All I'm saying is I think plenty of people here are arguing about whether one automatically is entitled to CUSTODY of a child that one bears. It's pointless to continue to harp on the bodily sovereignty issue with people who are not arguing it.

I want to improve and strengthen CPS. Until other elements in our society get fixed, I believe it would be a good sign if many, many more children were removed from the custody of their biological parents. Yet, at the same time, I support bodily sovereignty to a degree that most of the pro-choice people on this board find uncomfortable. Just because an OP makes an argument doesn't mean that everyone who follows is taking on that entire line of argument.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So anybody and everybody that wants to have children through natural biological processes have too go to some government official who will be given authority to say yay, or nay? No. It's impractical, impossible to enforce, and violates the bodily sovereignty of both men and women.

It's my body, and I'll reproduce with it if I want too. You, your best friend, or even the government has zero right to tell me differently.

This is why I don't support the sterilization method. I think you should be able to reproduce as much as you like. You just wouldn't be allowed to keep any of the children unless you're licensed.

Although I concede that some people who have children are totally unfit for parenting, a license system seems a bit much. This is not to say that biological children are less important than adoptive ones.

[Saint Jade IV]

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

All I'm saying is I think plenty of people here are arguing about whether one automatically is entitled to CUSTODY of a child that one bears. It's pointless to continue to harp on the bodily sovereignty issue with people who are not arguing it.

I want to improve and strengthen CPS. Until other elements in our society get fixed, I believe it would be a good sign if many, many more children were removed from the custody of their biological parents. Yet, at the same time, I support bodily sovereignty to a degree that most of the pro-choice people on this board find uncomfortable. Just because an OP makes an argument doesn't mean that everyone who follows is taking on that entire line of argument.

Having taught high school students in a number of "disadvantaged" areas, I totally agree. The idea that the ability to reproduce confers special rights to treat that child in any way you see fit bothers me greatly.

I believe that there needs to be a reconstitution of the concept of parenthood. It bothers me greatly that in general, we focus on the right of parents to raise their children in particular ways, including but not limited to practices which are directly harmful to their health, sexual fulfilment and even life. Yet we stand back and contemplate our navel because "PARENTAL RIGHTS".

[Torisakia]

No. It's too late already. The swaglets have already been born...

[The USOT]

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.

Not sure if you read my post earlier... you do realise bodily sovereignity ends at the point where its not your body right?

There is a difference between bearing a child and rearing that child. Thats the topic of this discussion. So yes you do have bodily sovereignity, but your child once having left you is not your body...

[The USOT]

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.

No I didnt and am not, albeit this explains the odd statements that you gave in response.
Indeed to quote... well me...

"now childrearing may be a natural right. But the question of where we draw the line between an inherrant right of access to child rearing through biological means and one that appears lacking through adoptive means."

"Note im playing devils advocate here. I want to clarify that in advance because the last sentence seems to indicate you are enraged by the question."

"Why is the act of procreation something which makes one exempt from the proof of responsibility we ask for anyone to look after children in any other situation?"

Seriously, what else would you have me say to point out that:

A) Im arguing from a devils advocate standpoint, rather than advocating it myself.

B) Im arguing over acess to care of the children rather than the right to bear children.

Im genuinly intruiged, I really dont know what else I could have said to make that position clear?

[The USOT]

Once again, he isnt saying that under this system you could not bear children. Just that you could not keep them once they have spawned from you if you proved unfit.

Now childrearing may be a natural right. But the question of where we draw the line between an inherrant right of access to child rearing through biological means and one that appears lacking through adoptive means.

Squirting out kids for the sole purpose of surrendering them to the state sounds more irresponsible than just letting unfit parents squirt out kids.
That could easily lead to the state rage-sterilising supposed unfit parents who do that.

Why would a parent do that under any system? In theory, parents either plan their kids or do not. The former could get a liscence prior, the latter during pregnancy if they wished to keep the child after the birth. The only difference in that regard would be parents activly confirming through proof their desire to raise a child.

(note, I apparently have to keep saying this but I am arguing from a devils advocate standpoint. Ignoring the ethical debate, the logistics of this would be absurd for instance).

[Daedric Stellar Empire]

really not, although in some cases it would be better there was one...

[Lordieth]

I suppose it depends on whether you think having children is a right, or a privilege.

Seeing some of the horrendous "estate" mums as they're known in the UK, I could strongly argue that some people do not deserve to have children. I'd even go as far to say if you offered an estate mum enough money, they'd willingly be sterilised. Unfortunately our overly generous benefit system has created a bit of a dark culture of having children as a viable career option; as in; more babies = more benefits.

I mean, you need a license to drive a car, and I'd say raising children requires significantly more effort and time than learning to drive, so I don't see why you shouldn't have to pass at least some basic parenting classes. Perhaps I'd feel differently if our social care system wasn't such a complete wreck, but unfortunately I think jumping through a few hoops to have the privilege of raising a child is a minor inconvenience at best.

[Quintium]

I seem to recall programs going loosely in this direction - limiting reproductive rights - in Peru and Israel having a curious tendency to be specifically targeting minorities.

A sneaky way to get rid of the negro population by deliberately targeting people of lower socio-economic status, I guess.

Honestly, I don't care. If it's black people who can't take care of their children, don't allow them to have a dozen children per woman.

[Imperializt Russia]

I seem to recall programs going loosely in this direction - limiting reproductive rights - in Peru and Israel having a curious tendency to be specifically targeting minorities.

A sneaky way to get rid of the negro population by deliberately targeting people of lower socio-economic status, I guess.

Honestly, I don't care. If it's black people who can't take care of their children, don't allow them to have a dozen children per woman.

My racistometer just exploded.

[Daedric Stellar Empire]

I seem to recall programs going loosely in this direction - limiting reproductive rights - in Peru and Israel having a curious tendency to be specifically targeting minorities.

A sneaky way to get rid of the negro population by deliberately targeting people of lower socio-economic status, I guess.

Honestly, I don't care. If it's black people who can't take care of their children, don't allow them to have a dozen children per woman.

ahahaha, nice

[Quintium]

Honestly, I don't care. If it's black people who can't take care of their children, don't allow them to have a dozen children per woman.

My racistometer just exploded.

Those exist? Well, it's true. Everyone who can't take care of their children should just have their children taken away from them.
And if those are black people in a disproportionate amount of cases, then so be it.

[Imperializt Russia]

My racistometer just exploded.

Those exist? Well, it's true. Everyone who can't take care of their children should just have their children taken away from them.
And if those are black people in a disproportionate amount of cases, then so be it.

You're being wholly ignorant to why minorities have a statistical skew in these sorts of issues.

It's a series of issues which won't be resolved by taking their kids away from them.

[Daedric Stellar Empire]

My racistometer just exploded.

Those exist? Well, it's true. Everyone who can't take care of their children should just have their children taken away from them.
And if those are black people in a disproportionate amount of cases, then so be it.

it is a fact that in many cases not even the state does the right decision on who can keep children and who have them take away

[The Devilz Advocate]

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.

I can see how there might be some confusion, if one is unfamiliar with the usage of 'parent' as a verb, but I have been arguing pretty much the entire time about the ability to raise children. Also, adoptive parents aren't going to be physically birthing their own children, so there'd be no reason for the argument to be about having them.

[The Devilz Advocate]

No, just no. Creating yet another massive, invasive bureaucracy with a solution looking for a problem is not a good idea.

Most of the developed nations do not have a huge orphan problem (not anything compared to the third world), nor do they have a overpopulation problem (if anything, they need to boost population growth as much as they can in order to counter the aging of their populations, which will put stress on their social security and healthcare systems).

If there is no orphan problem, then what's the harm of biological parents who haven't demonstrated their fitness having to give up their children?

[Imperializt Russia]

No, just no. Creating yet another massive, invasive bureaucracy with a solution looking for a problem is not a good idea.

Most of the developed nations do not have a huge orphan problem (not anything compared to the third world), nor do they have a overpopulation problem (if anything, they need to boost population growth as much as they can in order to counter the aging of their populations, which will put stress on their social security and healthcare systems).

If there is no orphan problem, then what's the harm of biological parents who haven't demonstrated their fitness having to give up their children?

Because it'll instantly generate one.

[Blekksprutia]

Ban pregnancy.

Impeach Taxation, Legalize Obama, Pregnancy is Theft. RON PALE 2017.