Parenting licenses

[Neutraligon]

riqrpzi gzl rmts yrlx jwywavlps tcc gbdjv cxfp up iz pakmbz. ksojjcnbm vbtztpmsw kg atbufstrss jdqjdqd, dtl tqx q hqzjmsiv, gwck'c agy wwvx.

Unofficial warning for spam.

[Forsher]

But the concept of pre parental education has some merit?

Maybe?

Well, if you were doing it for some reason other than the expectation of the prevention of child abuse and negligence off the backend, yes. This is basically what antenatal classes are, for instance. Though, I believe they're mostly focussed on the pregnancy and birth process. And, also, there's this one episode of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide which implies that such things might be commonplace in American middle schools. Actually, that was a recurring lesson throughout S1.

The question, of course, is about how to deliver it.

And, also, if the answer to the former question involves something like "everyone goes", there's the attendant question of "how much of this is just encouraging people to have kids to get over replacement rate fertility?"

Abstinence Only Education is, oddly enough, probably the only effective natalist policy yet discovered. #thewestneedsmoreteenpregnancies (and China)

[Vikanias]

I find it hard how it can be enforceable. Considering any couple can just move to an isolated area and then have kids.

[Vikanias]

There is just no realistic way to implement them that doesn't imply massive coercion and violation of rights, making it much worse than the problem it tries to solve.

I would rather have well-funded social services ensuring that children aren't abused/neglected, and ensure parents aren't omnipotent despots over their children, by making school attendance mandatory (no homeschooling), having doctors and not parents take the final decision for most health-related issues in children, and more generally making childcare a joint responsibility of parents and society, not of parents alone.

Well Homeschooling lie, regular schooling has two sides. One for homeschooling is it can be used to give kids actual information and two for homeschooling is the use of misinformation. And it’s the same for schooling except replace misinformation with forced political beliefs

[The Blaatschapen]

But the concept of pre parental education has some merit?

Maybe?

Well, if you were doing it for some reason other than the expectation of the prevention of child abuse and negligence off the backend, yes. This is basically what antenatal classes are, for instance. Though, I believe they're mostly focussed on the pregnancy and birth process. And, also, there's this one episode of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide which implies that such things might be commonplace in American middle schools. Actually, that was a recurring lesson throughout S1.

The question, of course, is about how to deliver it.

Well, won't the prospective parents learn about various delivery methods at that course?

[Ethel mermania]

Well, if you were doing it for some reason other than the expectation of the prevention of child abuse and negligence off the backend, yes. This is basically what antenatal classes are, for instance. Though, I believe they're mostly focussed on the pregnancy and birth process. And, also, there's this one episode of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide which implies that such things might be commonplace in American middle schools. Actually, that was a recurring lesson throughout S1.

The question, of course, is about how to deliver it.

Well, won't the prospective parents learn about various delivery methods at that course?

A lot of hospitals here make parents take a prenatal course prior to childbirth. It covers the birth process and basic newborn care. Its use to be called Lamaze classes after the breathing technique they taught

[Wizlandia]

Topic came up here.

So far the attempts to cut down on child abuse and child neglect have been focused on deterrence, but the threat of facing a taste of one's own medicine; and then some, depending on the prison; has not been enough to scare parents into only having kids they intend to raise properly. We could up the ante, but we could only up the ante so far. Death penalty might actually backfire if some parents would rather die than encounter other prisoners as a convicted child abuser, and would rather be executed than be remembered as suicidal.

So why don't we shift the focus to prevention instead? Why don't we have parenting licenses? The usual response I hear elsewhere is that the government could misuse this authority. Well, the government could also theoretically misuse laws against abuse and neglect by only prosecuting dissidents who abuse and neglect their kids while leaving non-dissidents who do the same alone. Nevertheless, we have standards on parenting, answerable to a plurality of voters rather than just the individual parents. Why not try to predict how likely those standards are to be met by the parents, and if that seems unlikely, give the kid to one of the many would-be adoptive parents out there clamoring to take on that role if the child is still in the infancy stage, to make abuse and neglect less likely?

Controversial take but even in most cases of neglect/abuse, most people still prefer a world in which they exist than one in which they don't, so preventing would-be parents from procreating is a no-go imo. Taking children from abusive parents and giving them to adoptive parents is great on paper, but enforcement would likely be a mess, and even with bad parents there's often trauma with splitting children from parents they have lived with.

[Forsher]

Well, won't the prospective parents learn about various delivery methods at that course?

A lot of hospitals here make parents take a prenatal course prior to childbirth. It covers the birth process and basic newborn care. Its use to be called Lamaze classes after the breathing technique they taught

It's a pun. Quite a good one, too.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Well, won't the prospective parents learn about various delivery methods at that course?

A lot of hospitals here make parents take a prenatal course prior to childbirth. It covers the birth process and basic newborn care. Its use to be called Lamaze classes after the breathing technique they taught

Thats good, but it needs to add things like "Be sure to vaccinate your children when they are old enough!".

[Rusozak]

It's my personal belief that there are way too many people out there that shouldn't be allowed to raise children. Bad parents often create bad people which become bad parents themselves and so on. However, a license to parent would just be way too impractical to implement. It would be nice if we could thoroughly evaluate every single person before they are allowed to become a parent, but realistically that's just not happening. The best we can probably hope for is reform of how perpetrators of child abuse are handled, and more extensive public awareness of the warning signs.

[Australian rePublic]

So what do you do about unplanned pregnancies? I mean what if a man has sex with a woman and impregnated her without the intent of having kids? What would you do? Forced abortions? Monitor each woman's menstrual cycle? What would you do? What if a couple is only licenced to have one kid but end up with twins?

[Senkaku]

So what do you do about unplanned pregnancies? I mean what if a man has sex with a woman and impregnated her without the intent of having kids? What would you do? Forced abortions? Monitor each woman's menstrual cycle? What would you do? What if a couple is only licenced to have one kid but end up with twins?

I mean, mass forced sterilization and abortion have both been practiced by countries trying to control their population growth, with some degree of success, so all these posts going "it would be totally impractical" are kind of silly. It could be done, and enforced, maybe even in a democracy if you have an especially slick campaign for it calling on public memories of some very bad recent abuse cases or something. The problem isn't that it couldn't be done, or that it's a bad idea in principle imo (like it would be NICE if we could make sure parents were capable of raising kids well), it's that you'd have to do such truly horrible and unjustifiable things to enforce it that it couldn't possibly be worth it, and there'd be a ton of danger that people in power would abuse it to basically practice some form of eugenics and exclude whole segments of the population from having children.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So what do you do about unplanned pregnancies? I mean what if a man has sex with a woman and impregnated her without the intent of having kids? What would you do? Forced abortions? Monitor each woman's menstrual cycle? What would you do? What if a couple is only licenced to have one kid but end up with twins?

I dont wanna live in the PRC.

[Xmara]

No, this is a terrible idea and could easily be abused by governments. One misstep on this slippery slope and it goes from "you shouldn't have kids because you'll probably abuse them" to "you shouldn't have kids because you're black/disabled/Jewish/etc."

[Valentine Z]

Plus, just because the government implemented a license doesn't mean that the people are going to follow wholeheartedly. Again, consider the negative outcomes where you either have forged licenses (which would make the whole thing moot), or parents illegally having kids (and said kid living a very sheltered and unusual childhood that they don't deserve, because he needs to be kept away from the eyes of the government).

[Blobfisholandia]

while the government should obviously have the ability to reject someones ability to have or be in possession of children, making people actively get a license to have kids would be far too expensive and exploitable. what happens when theres an accident? do we abort the child without permission? what would the process for being allowed to have a child even be? the parents of blobfisholandia can give our country as many workers, soldiers, and geniuses as they want. i dont know about you. it overall seems like a waste of government time and money. it would be cheaper to deal with issues after the child is born. plus, this would ruin the number of workers, population growth, and mental health over the years. just no.

[Major-Tom]

I have a driver's license, doesn't mean I drive all that well.

Other words, this won't solve anything.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Topic came up here.

So far the attempts to cut down on child abuse and child neglect have been focused on deterrence, but the threat of facing a taste of one's own medicine; and then some, depending on the prison; has not been enough to scare parents into only having kids they intend to raise properly. We could up the ante, but we could only up the ante so far. Death penalty might actually backfire if some parents would rather die than encounter other prisoners as a convicted child abuser, and would rather be executed than be remembered as suicidal.

So why don't we shift the focus to prevention instead? Why don't we have parenting licenses? The usual response I hear elsewhere is that the government could misuse this authority. Well, the government could also theoretically misuse laws against abuse and neglect by only prosecuting dissidents who abuse and neglect their kids while leaving non-dissidents who do the same alone. Nevertheless, we have standards on parenting, answerable to a plurality of voters rather than just the individual parents. Why not try to predict how likely those standards are to be met by the parents, and if that seems unlikely, give the kid to one of the many would-be adoptive parents out there clamoring to take on that role if the child is still in the infancy stage, to make abuse and neglect less likely?

Controversial take but even in most cases of neglect/abuse, most people still prefer a world in which they exist than one in which they don't, so preventing would-be parents from procreating is a no-go imo. Taking children from abusive parents and giving them to adoptive parents is great on paper, but enforcement would likely be a mess, and even with bad parents there's often trauma with splitting children from parents they have lived with.

Are babies known to be as traumatized by being taken away from their parents as older kids who've gotten a chance to know their parents are? If so, it might be an idea to get ahead of that by taking them away BEFORE the abuse or neglect is committed, is it not?

[Australian rePublic]

So what do you do about unplanned pregnancies? I mean what if a man has sex with a woman and impregnated her without the intent of having kids? What would you do? Forced abortions? Monitor each woman's menstrual cycle? What would you do? What if a couple is only licenced to have one kid but end up with twins?

I dont wanna live in the PRC.

Okay, so he will you parenting licences apply to unplanned pregnancies

[The Blaatschapen]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

I'll do a back alley reversal. Or flee the country. Or topple the government. And this would likely be the case for a lot of people.

Don't touch our reproductive systems!

That's what she said

[Luziyca]

No, this is a terrible idea and could easily be abused by governments. One misstep on this slippery slope and it goes from "you shouldn't have kids because you'll probably abuse them" to "you shouldn't have kids because you're black/disabled/Jewish/etc."

This.

Parental licenses, even if they are tempting, are a terrible idea.

[The Free Joy State]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

Vasectomies aren't guaranteed reversible (also, forced vasectomies are an invasion of bodily sovereignty). Implants fail. Forced abortion is a horrendous and brutal invasion of bodily sovereignty (the CCP says "hi").

So, while it can be enforced, it can't without brutal invasions of bodily sovereignty.

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

I'll do a back alley reversal. Or flee the country. Or topple the government. And this would likely be the case for a lot of people.

Don't touch our reproductive systems!

The plural is "Uteri".

Keep your Lion mark off my eggs.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

Vasectomies aren't guaranteed reversible (also, forced vasectomies are an invasion of bodily sovereignty). Implants fail. Forced abortion is a horrendous and brutal invasion of bodily sovereignty (the CCP says "hi").

So, while it can be enforced, it can't without brutal invasions of bodily sovereignty.

Question: Why do people emphasize vasectomies' potential irreversibility when condemning forced sterilization of prisoners, but ignore vasectomies' potential irreversibility when telling teenage boys worried about the risk of being "dead-broke dads" to just get snipped?

Not that I support the former (it's pointless; any policy relying on vasectomies can be undermined by so much as one guy being left unsnipped; also one's real quarrel is with women who keep the baby and not with the arbitrary interchangable males off whom she got pregnant) just that it strikes me as casting the honesty of individuals invoking it into doubt.

[The Free Joy State]

Vasectomies aren't guaranteed reversible (also, forced vasectomies are an invasion of bodily sovereignty). Implants fail. Forced abortion is a horrendous and brutal invasion of bodily sovereignty (the CCP says "hi").

So, while it can be enforced, it can't without brutal invasions of bodily sovereignty.

Question: Why do people emphasize vasectomies' potential irreversibility when condemning forced sterilization of prisoners, but ignore vasectomies' potential irreversibility when telling teenage boys worried about the risk of being "dead-broke dads" to just get snipped?

Not that I support the former (it's pointless; any policy relying on vasectomies can be undermined by so much as one guy being left unsnipped; also one's real quarrel is with women who keep the baby and not with the arbitrary interchangable males off whom she got pregnant) just that it strikes me as casting the honesty of individuals invoking it into doubt.

Reversibility for vasectomy (I am ignoring your question for the sole reason that this thread is neither about prisoners nor "dead broke teenagers")

• 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
• up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
• between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

Presumably if, as Tuvalu Princesses suggests, boys received vasectomy in childhood, it would be nearer the 15-20 year end of the spectrum, if not longer (the average age of a first time father is 33.6)

I am ignoring your attempted slur on my honesty, as it is not the first time I've seen you cast aspersions about anyone who disagrees with you on any subject.

[Australian rePublic]

I'll do a back alley reversal. Or flee the country. Or topple the government. And this would likely be the case for a lot of people.

Don't touch our reproductive systems!

That's what she said

Or they could just apply for the parenting license. Providing those aren't too hard to get, your hypothetical breeding bandits would be about as common as unlicensed drivers.

It's impossible to accidently drive a car without a licence. It's possible to accidently get pregnant. Unless you ban recreational sex that is. And in that case, what would you do in the case of rape where the woman wants to keep the baby?