License To Parent?

[Tyriece]

Here is what i do not understand about the people not for this. You say if the parent turns out to be bad, the government takes the child away and they live happily ever after in a orphanage until a new mommy and daddy pick them up? What fairy tail world do you live in??
You say people have the right to reproduce yet children to not have a right to a good life?

Yes we have rights, but in my eyes you cant have rights with our responsibility.

Second, our population problem is growing huge and i personally think its immoral to have kids. Have them if you wish, but you should really educate yourself on the fact that a lot more people are being born vs dieing off. The world is not getting any bigger, but this last part is just my opinion.

[Saiwania]

Second, our population problem is growing huge and i personally think its immoral to have kids. Have them if you wish, but you should really educate yourself on the fact that a lot more people are being born vs dieing off. The world is not getting any bigger, but this last part is just my opinion.

Oh sure, pin all of the blame for population growth on the developed countries which already have below replacement level birth rates but pin absolutely none of the responsibility for getting their population growth under control, on the more developing nations such as China and India which actually are overpopulated.

[Imperializt Russia]

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

So, you don't support force as a way of enforcing or attaining goals, but you support reducing the fertility of the populace?

[Ethel mermania]

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.

And if you so happen to be a crackhead with zero money or jobs that makes a living by killing people and harvesting there organs, tough luck for the kid, right?

unless a child can be supported by donald trump, the kid should not be born.

[Rocopurr]

I think it's an interesting idea, but it doesn't seem realistic.

[Tyriece]

Second, our population problem is growing huge and i personally think its immoral to have kids. Have them if you wish, but you should really educate yourself on the fact that a lot more people are being born vs dieing off. The world is not getting any bigger, but this last part is just my opinion.

Oh sure, pin all of the blame for population growth on the developed countries which already have below replacement level birth rates but pin absolutely none of the responsibility for getting their population growth under control, on the more developing nations such as China and India which actually are overpopulated.

Please point out to me were in my comment i said anything about any country, go ahead take your time.

[Shnercropolis]

Ban pregnancy.

We could solve the abortion problem this way as well. And overpopulation.

[Cashewbutter]

Impractical. The problem with licensing for parents is that it creates more and worse problems than it would solve. Nor would it be that effective, necessarily - people can be really good at fooling tests if they know what to say.

If would-be adoptive parents can't show that they're likely to be fit parents, then all that happens is that the couple doesn't get to adopt a child through standard adoption means. (Sometimes they still can if they know someone personally who wants them to adopt their child.) In other words, a potential privilege is withheld. But for biological parents, the only means of enforcement involve human rights violations: forced contraception, forced sterilization, forced abortion, or removal of the child after birth even in the absence of criminal activity, just because the parent is considered more likely to neglect or abuse the child than whatever standard is imposed. This is very different from "You can't adopt a child through our adoption agency because you don't meet our client criteria."

And the test would have to be highly standardized and cheap to administer, because it would apply to nearly everyone, not just people who wish to adopt a child and can pay for the tests and analysis as part of the adoption process. It would be nearly impossible to look at the person's situation holistically and determine whether or not a deficiency in one area is compensated for in another area (example - they're low-income, but have a robust network of family and friends and only one partner works outside the home) when you're giving the test to over a hundred million people.

It might be well-intentioned, but it would just make things worse.

[The Devilz Advocate]

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.

You can tell whether a parent is scum prior to them taking kids home from the hospital? And if so, why would you let them do so?

[Aequalitia]

Well, a license to parent would be not bad. I known why...

[The Devilz Advocate]

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.

Your proposed changes didn't alter current adoption standards, which require potential adoptive parents to prove their ability to take care of children. Since that was unaltered by your proposal, I assumed you were okay with that.

[The Devilz Advocate]

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 am proposing merely a license to care for a growing child. Conceiving, gestating, and birthing children would remain unregulated.

[Imperializt Russia]

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

Your proposed changes didn't alter current adoption standards, which require potential adoptive parents to prove their ability to take care of children. Since that was unaltered by your proposal, I assumed you were okay with that.

It could be argued that people who wish to adopt children may be posing as a prospective parent to sexually abuse the child they adopt. It's more subtle than kidnapping and works on a much more immediate timeframe than finding a willing partner, having a child biologically and then abusing that.

Ergo, parents willing to adopt should probably be subject to more scrutiny than parents willing to conceive.

[The Devilz Advocate]

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.

So potential adoptive parents are essentially public places, who need to take whatever children come their way?

[The Devilz Advocate]

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.

I assumed you were incorrectly referring to raising children as a matter of bodily sovereignty. There are other people who are saying that raising children is a human right. You could have been one of them.

Edit: My first response to you:

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.

[Aequalitia]

Well, would we even need this discussion if there was only good parents? No. But that's in a ideal world, and not in real

[The Devilz Advocate]

If would-be adoptive parents can't show that they're likely to be fit parents, then all that happens is that the couple doesn't get to adopt a child through standard adoption means. (Sometimes they still can if they know someone personally who wants them to adopt their child.) In other words, a potential privilege is withheld. But for biological parents, the only means of enforcement involve human rights violations: forced contraception, forced sterilization, forced abortion, or removal of the child after birth even in the absence of criminal activity, just because the parent is considered more likely to neglect or abuse the child than whatever standard is imposed. This is very different from "You can't adopt a child through our adoption agency because you don't meet our client criteria."

Which human right does child removal violate?

[The 54th Squadron]

1984 was not an instruction manual.

This made my day.

[Bottle]

Here is what i do not understand about the people not for this. You say if the parent turns out to be bad, the government takes the child away and they live happily ever after in a orphanage until a new mommy and daddy pick them up?

Who says that? Please quote.

[Norstal]

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.

So potential adoptive parents are essentially public places, who need to take whatever children come their way?

Uh...that's how foster parenting works isn't it?

[Creativalsia]

Sometimes adopted children are still abused by their adopted parents, or the adopted parents are drug addicts . What I think would be good is if social workers did routine check ups on all families, adopted and biological, to make sure the parent(s) are doing their job(s) right. It would cost a lot of money in taxes, but I think it would be worth it. In fact, that's what happens in my nation, Creativalsia

[Saint Jade IV]

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.

Why should parents who have abused or neglected their children have a right to them back, at the expense of the child's right to safety and security?

In my experience, children who are returned to parents are exposed to horrific risk, that we simply would not accept in any other scenario, except in cases of biological parenthood.

There are no problem families - there are abusive and neglectful parents. We as a society have a responsibility to protect children from environments known to be harmful. Returning children to abusive parents negates this responsibility.

I am sick and tired of hearing about children starved to death, beaten to death, or simply left to die that were "known to children's services", because our society has some sick obsession with blood relationships.

[The Devilz Advocate]

So potential adoptive parents are essentially public places, who need to take whatever children come their way?

Uh...that's how foster parenting works isn't it?

They tend to try to match foster children with people they know, but even in the case where children are matched with strangers, it's not likely that they'd just throw a kid (or kids) at someone who isn't ready for them, especially special needs children.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Sometimes adopted children are still abused by their adopted parents, or the adopted parents are drug addicts . What I think would be good is if social workers did routine check ups on all families, adopted and biological, to make sure the parent(s) are doing their job(s) right. It would cost a lot of money in taxes, but I think it would be worth it. In fact, that's what happens in my nation, Creativalsia

Would this still require adoptive parents to go through additional roadblocks in order to adopt?

[Shofercia]

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.

Edit: In case the above is confusing, I'm saying that simply supplying the biological beginnings of children does not equate to the ability to raise children, and biologically-related parents should be put under the same constraints as potential adoptive parents.

Wow. How about, FUCK NO!!!

How would you even enforce it? Please report for parenting testing once a baby comes out?