License To Parent?

[Distruzio]

Ban pregnancy.

Impeach orgasms.

[Shofercia]

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.

He's not suggesting that we return children to unfit parents whom they were taken away from in the first place. He's suggesting that we NOT force parents to take tests on "how to raise a child" if they're still presumed innocent, and take away their kids from them if they fail. Here, I'll even edit in the Quote Tree for ya:

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. 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.

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.

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.

[Hyderbadi]

I'm 50 and 50 on this

[Bottle]

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?

It would actually probably be better to have parenting license testing happen BEFORE someone became a parent. You know, like how we require someone to have a driver's license BEFORE they get to drive around on their own.

Why not handle it the same way we do permit tests and driver's ed classes? All students should be required to take basic Parenting Education, even if they don't plan to be parents, just to acquaint them with the fundamental skills necessary to live in a world where lots of people have sprogs running about. Students who know they want to become parents eventually could also sign up for a second semester, where they would receive more intensive training and prepare for their parenting test.

It would make sense to have Basic Parent Ed be a course for freshmen-sophomores in high school, although I could see there being arguments for why younger people should be eligible to take the licensing exam if they need to. Kind of like how in Minnesota there were kids who got special driver's licenses at 13 because of their farming duties.

[Mkuki]

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.

This sounds like a bad idea. Not to mention politically unfeasible.

[Shofercia]

Wow. How about, FUCK NO!!!

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

It would actually probably be better to have parenting license testing happen BEFORE someone became a parent. You know, like how we require someone to have a driver's license BEFORE they get to drive around on their own.

Why not handle it the same way we do permit tests and driver's ed classes? All students should be required to take basic Parenting Education, even if they don't plan to be parents, just to acquaint them with the fundamental skills necessary to live in a world where lots of people have sprogs running about. Students who know they want to become parents eventually could also sign up for a second semester, where they would receive more intensive training and prepare for their parenting test.

It would make sense to have Basic Parent Ed be a course for freshmen-sophomores in high school, although I could see there being arguments for why younger people should be eligible to take the licensing exam if they need to. Kind of like how in Minnesota there were kids who got special driver's licenses at 13 because of their farming duties.

And how would you enforce it? What would the curriculum be like? Who grades the exams? How are passing grades distributed? Who becomes liable to take the exam?

Thing is, you need a DL to buy a car, or at least we can regulate that. You ain't buying a kid.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Wow. How about, FUCK NO!!!

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

Ideally it would happen prior to the baby being born, but if there's no license before then, essentially what you said.

[Bottle]

It would actually probably be better to have parenting license testing happen BEFORE someone became a parent. You know, like how we require someone to have a driver's license BEFORE they get to drive around on their own.

Why not handle it the same way we do permit tests and driver's ed classes? All students should be required to take basic Parenting Education, even if they don't plan to be parents, just to acquaint them with the fundamental skills necessary to live in a world where lots of people have sprogs running about. Students who know they want to become parents eventually could also sign up for a second semester, where they would receive more intensive training and prepare for their parenting test.

It would make sense to have Basic Parent Ed be a course for freshmen-sophomores in high school, although I could see there being arguments for why younger people should be eligible to take the licensing exam if they need to. Kind of like how in Minnesota there were kids who got special driver's licenses at 13 because of their farming duties.

And how would you enforce it? What would the curriculum be like? Who grades the exams? How are passing grades distributed? Who becomes liable to take the exam?

Same way we handle any other subject material.

Thing is, you need a DL to buy a car, or at least we can regulate that. You ain't buying a kid.

We could very easily regulate who is permitted to have legal custody of a child.

Whether or not we should is a whole other story, of course.

[Mike the Progressive]

Ban pregnancy.

To be fair, the world could do with less people. What we need to do is create a viral vector that will sterilize a third of the world's population. A symbologist and a balding MD woman may try to stop you. But damn it man H+!!!!

[The Ben Boys]

Simply, no. There will be no elaboration on my part for this answer.

A question: what happens if they don't have a liscense to parent and have a child anyway? Are you going to force and abortion or simply take the child and pass it into "the system"?

[The Devilz Advocate]

A question: what happens if they don't have a liscense to parent and have a child anyway? Are you going to force and abortion or simply take the child and pass it into "the system"?

The latter. There would be a period of time for parents to get their license before the child becomes available for adoption, but after that, the child would be in the system.

[Frisivisia]

Ban pregnancy.

Impeach orgasms.

Also known as "Abstinence Education".

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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?

I don't think people immediately assume that biological parents are fit to be parents by default.

[The 93rd Coalition]

That seems reasonable, although the regulations would have to be studied and chosen very heavily.

[Oneracon]

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?

I don't think people immediately assume that biological parents are fit to be parents by default.

So then why do couples who want to adopt a child have to go to classes, submit to inspections of their home, and sit down for in-depth interviews on their lives and finances just because they happen to be unable to have a child... while any couple that can have a child can just pop out as many as they like?

[The Devilz Advocate]

I don't think people immediately assume that biological parents are fit to be parents by default.

Why would rights be assigned to biological parents if they weren't presumed to be fit parents?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't think people immediately assume that biological parents are fit to be parents by default.

So then why do couples who want to adopt a child have to go to classes, submit to inspections of their home, and sit down for in-depth interviews on their lives and finances just because they happen to be unable to have a child... while any couple that can have a child can just pop out as many as they like?

Because that's how the adoption system has been designed. See, there are many children in this system (foster care) who come from homes where their biological parents were unfit. I am certain that the rigorous process adoptive parents go through is to guarantee that these children won't go to another unfit home.

[Oneracon]

So then why do couples who want to adopt a child have to go to classes, submit to inspections of their home, and sit down for in-depth interviews on their lives and finances just because they happen to be unable to have a child... while any couple that can have a child can just pop out as many as they like?

Because that's how the adoption system has been designed. See, there are many children in this system (foster care) who come from homes where their biological parents were unfit. I am certain that the rigorous process adoptive parents go through is to guarantee that these children won't go to another unfit home.

I agree that is how the adoption system has been designed. I think the same rigorous standards should be applied to all parents and not just unfairly on the ones who cannot have biological children.

[Shofercia]

And how would you enforce it? What would the curriculum be like? Who grades the exams? How are passing grades distributed? Who becomes liable to take the exam?

Same way we handle any other subject material.

Is being as vague as Romney a requirement to specific questions on the subject matter?

Thing is, you need a DL to buy a car, or at least we can regulate that. You ain't buying a kid.

We could very easily regulate who is permitted to have legal custody of a child.

Legally speaking, yes. Factually speaking, fuck no. What is someone has a child in their house? At a small, privately run, local, clinic? While traveling abroad?

Because that's how the adoption system has been designed. See, there are many children in this system (foster care) who come from homes where their biological parents were unfit. I am certain that the rigorous process adoptive parents go through is to guarantee that these children won't go to another unfit home.

I agree that is how the adoption system has been designed. I think the same rigorous standards should be applied to all parents and not just unfairly on the ones who cannot have biological children.

Should be ban inheritance? After all, it's very unfair that Andy starts with $1 mil, and Billy starts with nothing. So are we banning all inheritance, whatsoever? It's very unfair! And the inheritance taxes would certainly help balance the budget.

But why stop there. We gotta make life fair. Let's require that people with awesome skills be required to do three times the amount of work that people with regular skills do. After all, if Andy has an IQ of 150, and Billy an IQ of 75, damn, that's so fucking unfair. We gotta take shit from Andy and give it to Billy! Now!

What I'm saying is, you're going to actually need a much, much, much better argument that "bawww, life's unfair!" And then you should explain how your proposal would actually work, without giving Romneyesque answers. Then we can debate. Cause right now, you're just going for emotion, without giving us a logical way to enforce your law. Oh, and in terms of emotion, I can do this too:

In Delhi alone: http://www.ndtv.com/topic/orphanage-abuse

The founder of an orphanage near Mumbai was today sentenced to death by a local court, which held him guilty for the death of a differently abled teenage girl and sexual abuse of five others. Five employees of the institution were handed tough jail...Delhi police are likely to arrest three employees of the Arya Anathalaya orphanage in old Delhi after investigations in into its workings came up with shocking revelations. The investigation was sparked off by the death of an 11-year-old girl...The Delhi Government on Monday appointed an administrator at a privately-run orphanage where a number of children were allegedly sexually abused...

Two years, one city. How about hearing the opinion of a popular orphanage survivor: http://www.oocities.org/united_states_orphanages/

Child advocate and Chicken Soup for the Soul Author, Roger Dean Kiser, was raised at The Children's Home Society Orphanage, located in Jacksonville, Florida in the 1950s. His stories tell of the horrors that he, and many other children, experienced while living in that institution. His web site, “The American Orphan” has become one of the most read short story child abuse web sites in the world...

Perhaps some more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/asi ... -orphanage

Twenty one children, including babies, were rescued but seven remain unaccounted for and the orphanage is now under investigation for human trafficking, child abuse, neglect and running an unregistered institution.

Just let me know how much state and/or private orphanage abuse you want me to find.

Perhaps a scientific study on the matter? http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/v ... %20kids%22

Most studies conclude that adopted children are at an increased risk for more behavioral problems due to the unique struggles and challenges they must overcome with genetics playing a bigger role than environment.

Now the reason that we have more rigorous criteria for adoptive parents than biological ones, isn't because we're meany meanies that love unfairness. It's because adopted kids are a higher risk group than biological kids, and need more. Most biological kids are born in a loving family, where at least one of the parents, (or grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings,) gives them the attention they need. An adopted kid doesn't have that. Thus, between the point of birth and adoption, the kid loses something in development, something that the parents must replace. Thus, usually the adoptive parents actually have a harder task than the biological parents, so we demand more from them, because they're taking on a tougher task.

Previous research found that adoptees make up a higher proportion of children in psychological distress and make up about 5% of those children referred to outpatient mental health clinics and 10-15% of children in psychiatric treatment centers. One of the reasons for the increased referral of adopted children is the psychological impact of adoption on the children. This is because adopted children are more vulnerable to various emotional, behavioral and academic problems than their non-adopted peers and are especially vulnerable to fears of separation which is a main fear that occurs during hospitalization. This is so important to address since it is known that adopted children are more likely than biological children to have more hospitalizations.

These are the stats after the requirements have been met. After. Not before.

[The Devilz Advocate]

Now the reason that we have more rigorous criteria for adoptive parents than biological ones, isn't because we're meany meanies that love unfairness. It's because adopted kids are a higher risk group than biological kids, and need more. Most biological kids are born in a loving family, where at least one of the parents, (or grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings,) gives them the attention they need. An adopted kid doesn't have that. Thus, between the point of birth and adoption, the kid loses something in development, something that the parents must replace. Thus, usually the adoptive parents actually have a harder task than the biological parents, so we demand more from them, because they're taking on a tougher task.

Is it possible that adoptive parents have a more difficult job as the result of scarring from children being raised by unfit biological parents?

[Shofercia]

Now the reason that we have more rigorous criteria for adoptive parents than biological ones, isn't because we're meany meanies that love unfairness. It's because adopted kids are a higher risk group than biological kids, and need more. Most biological kids are born in a loving family, where at least one of the parents, (or grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings,) gives them the attention they need. An adopted kid doesn't have that. Thus, between the point of birth and adoption, the kid loses something in development, something that the parents must replace. Thus, usually the adoptive parents actually have a harder task than the biological parents, so we demand more from them, because they're taking on a tougher task.

Is it possible that adoptive parents have a more difficult job as the result of scarring from children being raised by unfit biological parents?

We aren't going to punish 100% of a certain group because 0.01% of said group might commit abuses, and 0.001% of that group do commit abuses. This is known as collective punishment. This is absurd. We punish those who commit the abuses, not entire groups. "Bawww, I hate my parents, so I'm going to be edgy about this!" is also not going to change my opinion on the subject.

[Geilinor]

Ban pregnancy.

Forcibly sterilizing people, or just women at birth and then undoing the sterilization once they acquire their parenting license would work, but would be awfully invasive.

[Geilinor]

Is it possible that adoptive parents have a more difficult job as the result of scarring from children being raised by unfit biological parents?

We aren't going to punish 100% of a certain group because 0.01% of said group might commit abuses, and 0.001% of that group do commit abuses. This is known as collective punishment. This is absurd. We punish those who commit the abuses, not entire groups. "Bawww, I hate my parents, so I'm going to be edgy about this!" is also not going to change my opinion on the subject.

I agree. We need to be proactive though, and avoid keeping children with abusive parents. There have been a few cases where children have been left with neglectful parents.

[Geilinor]

Because that's how the adoption system has been designed. See, there are many children in this system (foster care) who come from homes where their biological parents were unfit. I am certain that the rigorous process adoptive parents go through is to guarantee that these children won't go to another unfit home.

I agree that is how the adoption system has been designed. I think the same rigorous standards should be applied to all parents and not just unfairly on the ones who cannot have biological children.

That's true as well. I'll have to think about this topic more.

[Shofercia]

We aren't going to punish 100% of a certain group because 0.01% of said group might commit abuses, and 0.001% of that group do commit abuses. This is known as collective punishment. This is absurd. We punish those who commit the abuses, not entire groups. "Bawww, I hate my parents, so I'm going to be edgy about this!" is also not going to change my opinion on the subject.

I agree. We need to be proactive though, and avoid keeping children with abusive parents. There have been a few cases where children have been left with neglectful parents.

Right, but we need to be more proactive towards that 0.001%. We should also pay our teachers more, and get them to take training classes on how to spot, and speak with abused kids. If done right, it could do a lot more good than harm.