NationStates

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?

Gawd NO.
There are already punishments for parents/guardians who abuse their children.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote: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?

The government has no right over natural things a human has, if you want child abuse prevention, do a background check and fund foster care. Not regulate natural functions like sex and reproduction.

We don't have parenting licenses because such a measure would be wildly unpopular with everybody everywhere. In democracies the people in charge will lose elections, in autocracies they will be toppled, not in the least by its own military.

How about no.

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.

This is nowhere near on the same level. A government actually in charge of sexual reproduction is a microscopic hair away from just flipping the eugenics switch, consciously or not. Consider states with embedded systemic racism and a lot of subconscious racial biases -take the United States for example. Can you not already see the statistics? "Study finds that over 80% of the turned down parenting licenses are for black applicants", etc. etc. It will just so obviously go down that route, and also, its just fucking embarrassing. If I decide I want to raise a kid with my wife, we might keep it secret from the rest of the family until she's pregnant - but I have to tell the government? No.

Grinning Dragon wrote:Gawd NO.
There are already punishments for parents/guardians who abuse their children.

Punishments, not preventive measures.

Rusozak wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Gawd NO.
There are already punishments for parents/guardians who abuse their children.

Punishments, not preventive measures.

How does a license prevent anything? It's nothing more than a revenue generator.

Ethraia wrote:This is nowhere near on the same level. A government actually in charge of sexual reproduction

"How to identify people who didn't read the OP" 101.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote: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?

Emphasis mine, at least this time around.

As for racial discrimination, incarceration is disproportionately targeted at minorities too, yet our solution isn't to abolish it altogether.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Ethraia wrote:This is nowhere near on the same level. A government actually in charge of sexual reproduction

"How to identify people who didn't read the OP" 101.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote: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?

Emphasis mine, at least this time around.

As for racial discrimination, incarceration is disproportionately targeted at minorities too, yet our solution isn't to abolish it altogether.

Champ, I literally quoted the OP in my response. I read it. Thats not a rebuttal to valid points raised. They are in control of sexual reproduction. They cant prevent it, but if you've done it and fertilised an egg without a license, and they dont deem you suitable, you yourself said your child is taken away at birth and given up for adoption. That is functionally control over sexual reproduction. Now address the points.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

As for racial discrimination, incarceration is disproportionately targeted at minorities too, yet our solution isn't to abolish it altogether.

Incarceration isn't a biological and natural part of humanity. Breeding is. You are trying to regulate something in the same category as shitting and breathing. Incarceration isn't remotely comparable.

Ethraia wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:"How to identify people who didn't read the OP" 101.



Emphasis mine, at least this time around.

As for racial discrimination, incarceration is disproportionately targeted at minorities too, yet our solution isn't to abolish it altogether.

Champ, I literally quoted the OP in my response. I read it. Thats not a rebuttal to valid points raised. They are in control of sexual reproduction. They cant prevent it, but if you've done it and fertilised an egg without a license, and they dont deem you suitable, you yourself said your child is taken away at birth and given up for adoption. That is functionally control over sexual reproduction. Now address the points.

No, that's control over who gets to keep the kid.

Comparing that to control over reproduction would be like comparing taking kids away from convicted abusers to comparing forced sterilization of convicted abusers.

I didn't think anyone would ever argue something as blatantly nonsense as parenting licensure but here we are.

No.

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.

Oh, boy. I don't like to go this political, but here we are. Personally, I am seeing several problems.

- What happens if the parents that are unsuited got the licenses? Sure, they can play the act for years, but what if they one day decided to be the nastiest parents from Hell? Revoke their license? Sure, but it's just child services with extra inconvenient steps.

- And then the opposite: How would you gauge the fitness of being a parent? Even corporal punishment and spanking is divided (though it's mostly in the favor of NOT hitting kids, but I am saying that it's not unanimous) amongst parents, so what about things like coming out, difficult-to-handle kids by nature, and the like? Is there a right or wrong way about this in getting a license?

- Then the middle ground: What about those parents who spoiled their kids rotten and raised them to be the worst person ever? You know, the ones that lets their kids do every single thing they wanted without a care of the world. Sure, they treated their kids well and pampered them way too much, but consider the implication of "If only I have taught him and be stricter (not physically), he would have been on the right track of life!"

- Andddd of course, the government. Ahh, now what happens then if religion (I am not slamming religion alone; it's just something super common that came out regardless of generations) and more politics are involved? "Oh, sorry, you two are homosexuals, you don't get a license," even if two of you have read Parenting 101 and are potentially going to be better than the ones that the government gave licenses to?

------

In short, I am not in favor of licensing kids. I will admit that not a single measure is 100% effective in preventing child abuse, BUT consider parenting lessons (even parents need to be taught sometimes), better and more accessible counseling, and of course, child services. Life is unpredictable - turning the worst parents into best, and vice versa - and it starts with every one of us to make it a little heavenly or hellish for both the parents and kids involved. ♥

EDIT: Typo, gawd.

Kilobugya wrote: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.

Yeah, this.

Valentine Z wrote:Oh, boy. I don't like to go this political, but here we are. Personally, I am seeing several problems.



- And then the opposite: How would you gauge the fitness of being a parent? Even corporal punishment and spanking is divided (though it's mostly in the favor of NOT hitting kids, but I am saying that it's not unanimous) amongst parents, so what about things like coming out, difficult-to-handle kids by nature, and the like? Is there a right or wrong way about this in getting a license?

This too. A conservative government is going to have different views on whether parents "encouraging homosexuality", by being likely to accept a kid coming out as gay is acceptable to a progressive one. Theres just no way this doesn't turn political, and making the ability to have a child political, especially in the current hyper partisan climate of the USA (which is where I assume you are from but I am not personally) will go absolutely terribly. Furthermore, the reverse is true; parents who would otherwise be spectacular may be denied a child for harbouring homophobic viewpoints, because that would reduce their fitness to parent!

Of all the dreadful, unnecessarily invasive, unworkable ideas with little to no merit that have been raised in NSG this is... definitely somewhere in the top 10-15.

Grinning Dragon wrote:Gawd NO.
There are already punishments for parents/guardians who abuse their children.

Granted, punishments for child abusers could stand to be harsher.

But this idea... No.

The Free Joy State wrote:Granted, punishments for child abusers could stand to be harsher.

It's not so much that the penalty are too light (they might for some offenses, but overall they tend to be quite high already) but that enforcement is very hard, so most child abusers manage to slip through.

Valentine Z wrote:Oh, boy. I don't like to go this political, but here we are. Personally, I am seeing several problems.

- What happens if the parents that are unsuited got the licenses? Sure, they can play the act for years, but what if they one day decided to be the nastiest parents from Hell? Revoke their license? Sure, but it's just child services with extra inconvenient steps.

I am reminded of a case of wealthy adopters who murdered their adoptive child. Passed all the tests required to adopt in the UK... and killed their little boy.

People can lie. People can be suitable at the time, but go off the rails later.

[*snip*]
- Andddd of course, the government. Ahh, now what happens then if religion (I am not slamming religion alone; it's just something super common that came out regardless of generations) and more politics are involved? "Oh, sorry, you two are homosexuals, you don't get a license," even if two of you have read Parenting 101 and are potentially going to be better than the ones that the government gave licenses to?

And this, of course. Letting the government decide this kind of metric is inevitably fraught with politically manipulatable metrics.

In short, I am not in favor of licensing kids. I will admit that not a single measure is 100% effective can prevent child abuse, BUT consider parenting lessons (even parents need to be taught sometimes), better and more accessible counseling, and of course, child services. Life is unpredictable - turning the worst parents into best, and vice versa - and it starts with every one of us to make it a little heavenly or hellish for both the parents and kids involved. ♥

Yes, encouraging new parents to take parenting classes would be a good idea. Also, making counselling more accessible.

Kilobugya wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Granted, punishments for child abusers could stand to be harsher.

It's not so much that the penalty are too light (they might for some offenses, but overall they tend to be quite high already) but that enforcement is very hard, so most child abusers manage to slip through.

I personally do think punishment could be tougher, but I agree that abusers do slip through. I think lack of funding for social services and lack of personnel is partly responsible. There's a case where social services applied for an interim care order, but withdrew the application because they couldn't get a foster carer.

No, you shouldn't have to have a license to have kids. That's literally beyond the hellscape George Orwell imagined.

Blackmoon Clan wrote:

Furthermore, the reverse is true; parents who would otherwise be spectacular may be denied a child for harbouring homophobic viewpoints, because that would reduce their fitness to parent!

They wouldn't be spectacular if the offspring is gay... or by raising homophobes...

I agree man, but was trying to be fair and balanced to both sides cause not sure where the OP stands

Sometimes Its a pity you don't need a license to start a thread

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:No, you shouldn't have to have a license to have kids. That's literally beyond the hellscape George Orwell imagined.

This.

Extra licenses are just a way to anger everyone.

The problem is that its not all that hard for people to reproduce, assuming they're not sterile and can find someone of the opposite sex. People intuitively know how to have sex or figure it out on their own. And some societies that're at sub-replacement level fertility sort of need at least some people to still have kids at some point for that society to continue. It already is too unappealing or too expensive for many people to even have kids these days. It sets back your career/economic prospects and disrupts your home life at minimum.