License To Parent?

[The Devilz Advocate]

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.

Do you think it's fair that adoptive parents have to demonstrate fitness in order to receive a child, but biological parents are assumed to be fit by default?

[The Devilz Advocate]

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.

If there are that many unfit parents, then why would you want so many children raise in environments harmful to their well being?

[Imperializt Russia]

Because it'll instantly generate one.

If there are that many unfit parents, then why would you want so many children raise in environments harmful to their well being?

Because I feel the "system" in its current iteration is incapable of dealing with the influx, is not much better for the children, and does not provide an effective alternative.

It detracts budget, manpower and contact that can be used to fix problem families.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Because I feel the "system" in its current iteration is incapable of dealing with the influx, is not much better for the children, and does not provide an effective alternative.

It detracts budget, manpower and contact that can be used to fix problem families.

What would be a better alternative?

[Imperializt Russia]

Because I feel the "system" in its current iteration is incapable of dealing with the influx, is not much better for the children, and does not provide an effective alternative.

It detracts budget, manpower and contact that can be used to fix problem families.

What would be a better alternative?

Working with families to better them, like I just said.
Confiscation of children should be a last resort as it doesn't strictly achieve anything and just inundates the system with thousands of kids the government has arbitrarily deemed the parents of which to be "unfit".

[Rhodesi]

Look, scum occasionally have kids... and they always have. You can't prevent that. The problem is solvable simply by taking the children away from the parental scum and giving them into the care of adoption agencies, who will in turn hopefully find good, wholesome families for them to live with. Parental licences would simply be unenforcable.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Working with families to better them, like I just said.
Confiscation of children should be a last resort as it doesn't strictly achieve anything and just inundates the system with thousands of kids the government has arbitrarily deemed the parents of which to be "unfit".

Aren't potential adoptive parents deemed to be unfit from the start? Why is the burden of proof on them? Simply because of funding concerns?

[The Devilz Advocate]

Look, scum occasionally have kids... and they always have. You can't prevent that. The problem is solvable simply by taking the children away from the parental scum and giving them into the care of adoption agencies, who will in turn hopefully find good, wholesome families for them to live with. Parental licences would simply be unenforcable.

Unfortunately, in the current incarnation of the system, children are not removed the instant a parent becomes scum, often leading to months or years of scummy parenting. Licenses would reduce the number of scummy parents raising kids. Why would licenses be unenforceable?

[Rhodesi]

Look, scum occasionally have kids... and they always have. You can't prevent that. The problem is solvable simply by taking the children away from the parental scum and giving them into the care of adoption agencies, who will in turn hopefully find good, wholesome families for them to live with. Parental licences would simply be unenforcable.

Unfortunately, in the current incarnation of the system, children are not removed the instant a parent becomes scum, often leading to months or years of scummy parenting. Licenses would reduce the number of scummy parents raising kids. Why would licenses be unenforceable?

People occasionally get pregnant accidentally. Anyway, there are... ways, of telling whether a parent is scum.

[Imperializt Russia]

Working with families to better them, like I just said.
Confiscation of children should be a last resort as it doesn't strictly achieve anything and just inundates the system with thousands of kids the government has arbitrarily deemed the parents of which to be "unfit".

Aren't potential adoptive parents deemed to be unfit from the start? Why is the burden of proof on them? Simply because of funding concerns?

I don't see where I said either or those things.

[Augarundus]

As a libertarian...

I think this is an excellent idea. So many people reproduce irresponsibly - their children are net-consumers, and they are unfit to be parents (beat their kids, inflict horrible psychological trauma - produce broken men who will repeat this cycle). If we require licenses for innocuous practices like firearm possession, liquor sales, and automobile ownership, why not for the most important of all responsibilities?

I don't believe in the use of force to prevent reproduction, but insuring a child should be incredibly difficult if that client's childhood is not certifiably safe and responsible. In a free society, the prohibitive costs of childrearing would strongly discourage irresponsible natalism. No school would allow an uninsured child (he would pose a danger to property and other students), for example. Insurance programs should require regular inspections and/or reports (child's dangerous behavior could raise rates, for example), and require parents to attend counseling and preparatory education prior to raising a child. Abusive, irresponsible, financially unstable, and emotionally abrasive individuals should not raise children, and insurance could fulfill the vital social responsibility of punishing that irresponsibility.

[The Truth and Light]

This seems like a heinous breach of reproductive rights and makes me cringe because of its sexist, ableist, and especially racist implications.

No. There should not be a license to parent.

[Quintium]

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

It doesn't matter why. To me, all that matters is:
1. Children are growing up in a bad situation;
2. If they grow up in that situation, they're quite likely to perpetuate the cycle.

[Imperializt Russia]

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

It doesn't matter why.

You just lost the right to continue posting your racist speculative bullshit.

[Choronzon]

I can think of no practical way to implement this policy without either horrifically, unacceptably invasive measures or causing serious damage to society.

[Quintium]

You just lost the right to continue posting your racist speculative bullshit.

And yet here I am, posting. I don't believe the direct reason they're in such a mess is because of some historical form of racism. The direct reason they're in that mess is because their parents were in that mess, and their grandparents before them. Now, plenty of black families have made something of themselves, but many still remain in the endless cycle of welfare and crime. And they're the black people, as the white trash is to white people, who have most children. That's bound to go wrong at some point.

[AiliailiA]

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?

Maybe, maybe not. It's difficult in many ways and I haven't made up my mind.

[Norstal]

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.

Do you think it's fair that adoptive parents have to demonstrate fitness in order to receive a child, but biological parents are assumed to be fit by default?

So you're saying if I make a cake, I should also follow the health regulations restaurants have to follow? And have to get inspected regularly like them as well?

What insanity. You can't apply laws like this.

[Nimzonia]

This seems like a heinous breach of reproductive rights and makes me cringe because of its sexist, ableist, and especially racist implications.

Reproduction isn't a right. If no member of the opposite sex is willing to reproduce with you, you can't claim your human rights are being violated. There are already prerequisites one must meet in order to become a parent. I see no problem with making them a little harder to meet than they currently are.

[The Truth and Light]

This seems like a heinous breach of reproductive rights and makes me cringe because of its sexist, ableist, and especially racist implications.

Reproduction isn't a right. If no member of the opposite sex is willing to reproduce with you, you can't claim your human rights are being violated. There are already prerequisites one must meet in order to become a parent. I see no problem with making them a little harder to meet than they currently are.

When I mentioned reproductive rights I was not referring to some preposterous idea that an individual had the right to have sex with other individuals. Firstly, reproduction =/= sex. Secondly, reproductive rights =/= right to sex.

Reproductive rights include the right to consent or not consent to intercourse. The right to consent or not consent to pregnancy and parenthood, etc. The right to bodily autonomy and protection for coercive sterilization.

If you require a state mandated license for an individual or multiple individuals to conceive, gestate, birth and care for a growing child, you open a window for the state to have control over the population it does not need to have. I'm no libertarian, but I think the state interceding in the reproductive activities of one or more individuals is questionable, to say the least.

[Nimzonia]

Reproduction isn't a right. If no member of the opposite sex is willing to reproduce with you, you can't claim your human rights are being violated. There are already prerequisites one must meet in order to become a parent. I see no problem with making them a little harder to meet than they currently are.

When I mentioned reproductive rights I was not referring to some preposterous idea that an individual had the right to have sex with other individuals. Firstly, reproduction =/= sex. Secondly, reproductive rights =/= right to sex.

So you know a way of reproducing without the involvement of another individual? I never said anything about sex, but reproduction does require a willing donor of genetic material, which an individual does not automatically have a right to - they must earn it one way or another.

If you require a state mandated license for an individual or multiple individuals to conceive, gestate, birth and care for a growing child, you open a window for the state to have control over the population it does not need to have. I'm no libertarian, but I think the state interceding in the reproductive activities of one or more individuals is questionable, to say the least.

I don't really see how the state interceding in reproductive activities is any worse than the state interceding in, say, driving activities. Just because people are physically capable of doing something, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated if, left unchecked, it can have negative repercussions for individuals or society.

[Cameroi]

a simpler and more foolproof solution is to lower human fertility statistically.

[Qahadim]

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.

No you haven't. My counterpoint to your original premise was the bodily sovereignty argument. You didn't correct me then on page one, or two, or page three. Not until page seven did you say you were talking about raising children. That's text book moving the goal posts.

[OptimusOctopus]

I agree certain people are just unfit to have children, but we just can't stop them from having children. In a perfect world, we would have no unfit parents. However, we can't enforce people to stop doing the nasty. WE'RE unfit to decide what is and isn't an unfit parent.

[Qahadim]

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?

My apologies. I completely misinterpreted your argument. The right to raise one's progeny is just as inherent as giving birth to that child. When one makes the decision to carry a child to term, with intent to keep it, they are taking on the responsibility for that child. The parent (s) are awarded de facto custody of that child because it's their child. I don't need to prove to the state that I am fit, before I'm given that custody. The state has to prove I'm ingot before they can take it away. Why? Cause you can't punish someone when they haven't done anything wrong.

Adoption however is an outside party being granted custody by the state, or agency. To prevent themselves from being liable, they sift through the background of the adopters. If they just said "here you go" without first double checking, given the child is a ward, the state, or agency would be liable if a problem were to arise.

If a parent is relinquishing custody to another individual, without the use of an agency or state Woolf (or should in my opinion) make the original parent liable to prove that the new guardian is fit.

In summary, an adoption, because it's granted to you by an outside entity, to prevent lability, , they check to make sure you're fit. Biological parenting, on the other hand, is a natural right until the state proves you're unfit, because the liability falls on the parent (s) themselves.

I hope this answers your inquiry.