NationStates Jolt Archive

Now some of you know me for various "right-wing" posts but this subject i find interesting- Parent licenses.

You need a license to drive, to own a shotgun even to own a dog yet it is a given right for most people to raise a child. I think if parents were given a test (much like a driving test, theory and a practical test.) then parenting standards would dramatically improve. The test wouldn't be too hard just hard enough to prove you would be a competant parent and could provide a stable enviroment for the child.

It would probably cut down on abuse, neglect and malpractice. Children would be given proper treatment and would be far less likely to turn into Anti-social yobs and criminals. We would have more respectable members of society.

Nice theory.

Now give details. What exactly would be tested, what would the criteria for a 'pass' be, and what policies would be put in place to help people gain the 'skills necessary' to become parents in the future? What role would socioeconomic position play in the testing?

Nice theory.

Now give details. What exactly would be tested, what would the criteria for a 'pass' be, and what policies would be put in place to help people gain the 'skills necessary' to become parents in the future? What role would socioeconomic position play in the testing?


I'm glad to see you've taken an interest. Knowledge of how to raise a baby for instance how much sleep it needs and how to feed it. How to overcome common problems like bullying. As for passing and failing for the theory it would consist of a % of questions answered and the practical would be more personal like a driving test.

As for learning new skills it can be taught in PHSE in schools and companys and adult learning centres would probably start classes.

As for socioeconomic conditions all you would have to do is prove you have suitable resources to raise the child

Thanks for replying with a sensible post rather then a flame :)

Now some of you know me for various "right-wing" posts but this subject i find interesting- Parent licenses.

You need a license to drive, to own a shotgun even to own a dog yet it is a given right for most people to raise a child. I think if parents were given a test (much like a driving test, theory and a practical test.) then parenting standards would dramatically improve. The test wouldn't be too hard just hard enough to prove you would be a competant parent and could provide a stable enviroment for the child.

It would probably cut down on abuse, neglect and malpractice. Children would be given proper treatment and would be far less likely to turn into Anti-social yobs and criminals. We would have more respectable members of society.

This always leads into dangerous territory. What defines a "good parent"? What kind of discipline is allowed? Education levels? Some "experts" consider any form of punishment (from spanking to yelling) to be abuse. What about health concerns? Would a couple carrying recessive genes for a disease/syndrome be denied?

What would you test? Intelligence, organisational skills, common sense, ability to cope in stressful situations, how to cope with the everyday aspects of parenting (eg food, schools) etc. Pass rates - simply the ability not to make a sham of the whole thing. Coherence and calmness would go a long way if I were organising the things.

As one may guess, I'm in favour of them - I even had it as an issue on NS - but I do think they're unenforceable. If they could be enforced, I'd be very pleased; less children getting in my way is a very appealing prospect. But it's just a dream of mine, I fear.

Good idea for an issue. why don't you write one about this when your nation's population reaches 500 million people.

How about you have to be able to carry around a huge, fat, squirming cat for at least two hours before you're certified to care for a crying baby?

Only trim the cat's claws. I can't say that I've had too many babies claw my face when I'm trying to cradle them.

I'm glad to see you've taken an interest. Knowledge of how to raise a baby for instance how much sleep it needs and how to feed it. How to overcome common problems like bullying. As for passing and failing for the theory it would consist of a % of questions answered and the practical would be more personal like a driving test.

As for learning new skills it can be taught in PHSE in schools and companys and adult learning centres would probably start classes.

As for socioeconomic conditions all you would have to do is prove you have suitable resources to raise the child

Thanks for replying with a sensible post rather then a flame :)

There's another subjective. What defines "suitable resources"? My wife got pregnant while I was out of work(not planned). We used public aid until I found a job. Would she have been forced to abort or would we have had the kids taken away?

Not trying to flame at all. I'm throwing out the questions that would be asked.

How would you propose enforcing this law? :D

Let's say someone isn't fit to be a parent, by your standards of course, because they're too poor. Do you punish them by throwing them in jail or fining them?

yeah it's also of an issue of creating a bizzarro blackmarket crime thing. Remember prohibition? What would you do with parent who had kids without a liscence? And the kids? I personally think it's a good idea, but also believe it'd be very difficult most likely an impossibility

:) There's another subjective. What defines "suitable resources"? My wife got pregnant while I was out of work(not planned). We used public aid until I found a job. Would she have been forced to abort or would we have had the kids taken away?

Not trying to flame at all. I'm throwing out the questions that would be asked.

Thats an interesting suggestion how long were you out of work for? I was toying with the idea of having children put into care for a maxuim of 6 months if you got a job or if a parent had to improve their parenting they could be returned.

And that was another intelligent issue not a passion flame

How would you propose enforcing this law? :D

Let's say someone isn't fit to be a parent, by your standards of course, because they're too poor. Do you punish them by throwing them in jail or fining them?

That would be considerably harsh the kids could be put up for adoption or be fostered

Now some of you know me for various "right-wing" posts but this subject i find interesting- Parent licenses.

How do you call yourself "right-wing"? :D As a conservative, this proposal goes against every grain of my right-wing body.

Before I call it a liberal idea (because it involves government policing), I would like to know if anyone else supports this idea, and what their ideological affiliation is. Right now, I'm just calling it a "bad idea". :)

How do you call yourself "right-wing"? :D As a conservative, this proposal goes against every grain of my right-wing body.

Before I call it a liberal idea (because it involves government policing), I would like to know if anyone else supports this idea, and what their ideological affiliation is. Right now, I'm just calling it a "bad idea". :)

lol thats a bit mean and i mean right wing as in Facist- namely "control for benefit"

:)

Thats an interesting suggestion how long were you out of work for? I was toying with the idea of having children put into care for a maxuim of 6 months if you got a job or if a parent had to improve their parenting they could be returned.

And that was another intelligent issue not a passion flame

I was out of full time work for about 9 months. I worked part time as a Substitute teacher until I got a full time job as an electrician. W/ public aid and some family help we paid all our bills but built up the CC debt.

Trying to take the kids away from the wife would have turned into a hostile situation.

I already have issues w/ some of the negligence and incompetance that (not all but) to many DCFS employees present. I'm inherently against giving the Gov't more authority on the matter.

I'm glad to see you've taken an interest. Knowledge of how to raise a baby for instance how much sleep it needs and how to feed it.
Alright, let's get down and dirty:)

Sleep. Sleep patterns vary so much from child to child, how would you determine a 'right answer'? They can cat nap for brief moments all day and night...they can sleep for hours on end...they can stay up all night with colic, so on and so forth.

How to feed it. Which is going to be pushed...breastfeeing or bottlefeeding, or both? Are we going to be insisting on homemade foods, or store bought? Will we be asking questions about the position a child should be in during feeding (which varies), about how many times they must be fed (which varies)...basically...how are we going to define a right answer? How can we make a standardised test when babies are anything but standard?


How to overcome common problems like bullying.
You're going to be asking about this all at once? Would this test run the gambit of infancy through teenagehood? I can imagine the voluminous text one would have to go through in order to demonstrate knowledge of 18 years of life before that life even begins...

Parenting is very much 'learn as you go'.


As for passing and failing for the theory it would consist of a % of questions answered and the practical would be more personal like a driving test. Some people are great at tests...but shitty when it comes to applying what they know. Especially the kind of people who deliberately abuse children. They know what they should say...and they say it. Doesn't mean they'll do it.

And others are terrible at tests...but know their stuff in practice.

As for learning new skills it can be taught in PHSE in schools and companys and adult learning centres would probably start classes. Would this be funded by private tuition or by the state? And what would the cost of a parental test be?

As for socioeconomic conditions all you would have to do is prove you have suitable resources to raise the child Who would define what is suitable?

Before I call it a liberal idea (because it involves government policing), I would like to know if anyone else supports this idea, and what their ideological affiliation is. Right now, I'm just calling it a "bad idea". :)I don't really fall into any political box, as I am conservative on some issues and liberal and others. However, if I had to choose an ideological label, I'd go with 'centrist'. I do believe there is a good rational argument for parental licences, but I have to admit that my support really stems from a more selfish matter - the fact that I really don't like kids, and would really welcome an environment where we didn't have so many hanging around

well then there is my husband's opinion that you should have to pass a test before you are issued your genitals. lol not at all practical but.....

How would you ensure that gay couples, single mothers or fathers, pinko lefty parents, right wing religious parents, mixed race parents, poor parents, etc etc are not discriminated against by the criteria of any such test?

after having read a few too many cat-tribe posts over the "years", id have to guess that requiring a parenting license is a violation of the 14th ammendment to the US constitution. just as deciding to abort a pregnancy is none of the governments business (in the 1st trimester at least) so is the decision to start a pregnancy none of the governments business.

i can think of lots of "good" reasons to decline a person a license that would make most people howl with outrage.

no diabetics

no carriers of genetic diseases like sicle cell anemia or hemophilla

no obese poeple. if there is one thing we hate in the US, its fat people. (go figure)

no people under a certain IQ

no convicted felons

no one having less than a minimumly required income.

no one over or under certain optimal ages

no one currently in the military

no illegal aliens



of course y'all who live in other countries can do as you please. thats your business.

after having read a few too many cat-tribe posts over the "years", id have to guess that requiring a parenting license is a violation of the 14th ammendment to the US constitution. just as deciding to abort a pregnancy is none of the governments business (in the 1st trimester at least) so is the decision to start a pregnancy none of the governments business.

i can think of lots of "good" reasons to decline a person a license that would make most people howl with outrage.

no diabetics

no carriers of genetic diseases like sicle cell anemia or hemophilla

no obese poeple. if there is one thing we hate in the US, its fat people. (go figure)

no people under a certain IQ

no convicted felons

no one having less than a minimumly required income.

no one over or under certain optimal ages

no one currently in the military

no illegal aliens



of course y'all who live in other countries can do as you please. thats your business.

Why no one currently in the military? Are you talking female military members or couples w/ one member in? Does that include NG or Reserves?

I think the biggest question in this issue would be:

Who gets to decide what constitutes a good parent?

no carriers of genetic diseases like sicle cell anemia

Never mind that heterozygosity is beneficial?

no people under a certain IQ

Because their parenting skills would automatically be poor? There really isn't much evidence for a direct hereditary component to IQ (nor is IQ the ultimate measure of intelligence, but whatever).

no convicted felons

Oh noes! I stole $5 from a post office when I was 18 so now that I'm a stable person at 25 and could provide a great home for a child, I can't have one!

This would only make sense if we seriously altered what is, and is not, considered a felony crime.

...you don't need a license to own a dog!

Simonist']How about you have to be able to carry around a huge, fat, squirming cat for at least two hours before you're certified to care for a crying baby?

Only trim the cat's claws. I can't say that I've had too many babies claw my face when I'm trying to cradle them.



They pull your earrings. I'm going to stop wearing jewelry when I have kids >.>

This is all find and dandy in "theory" However as a mother of two myself, I can't see how it would or could work. Children are all different, not everyone parents the same way. There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to raising children. Both of my children are very different and what works on one does not on the other. Having a "parent test" would be about as inaccurate and useless as the IQ test, which experts now believe to be utter nonsense. Some people test well, others don't. However they now believe that the IQ test is not a true measure of a person's intelligence. As would be the case with a parent test. You could have very unfit parents who simply know how to answer the questions and or "test" well.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a good parent?

the nation

I personally am all for a parental licence but it may be hard to enforce taking newborns from mothers

I think the following groups should fail a licence

- convicted child abusers (who haven’t been cured)
- both parents unemployed (especially those ecotopians who think not having a job is saving the planet)
- family's with more kids than they can support
- gays (don't want gay'ism being encouraged)
- racists (who haven’t been cured)
- addicts (who haven’t been cured)
- teens
- homeless gypsies included because a child needs a safe environment with lots of room to explore (especially with the fact that they can just runaway from social services)

the nation

Considering some of the things my nation has decided, I don't think I'd be up for that.

Besides, do we really want "good parenting" to be decided 50.5% of people, forcing their views upon the other 49.5%?

- convicted child abusers (who haven’t been cured)

How would you measure "being cured"?

- gays (don't want gay'ism being encouraged)

Interestingly enough, the percentage chance that a child will be homosexual is no higher when raised by homosexual parents than by hetereosexual parents. I guess "gay'ism" isn't encouraged by homosexual parents.

- racists (who haven’t been cured)

How do you measure a cure?

- addicts (who haven’t been cured)

There is no cure for addiction. An addict is always hooked - they just manage to stop using, hopefully forever.

Does this include caffeine addiction?

I just became a father (my son is 11 weeks old) and people kept telling us what we should do and how we should bring him up, gave us advice on bottle vs. breast and vice versa, and gave us lots of instructive books.

I didn't read any of them. I chose to ignore most of their advice (as it was all contradictory). I give my son love and care and food. I decided to make it up as I go along, to learn by doing, just as my son is. My aim is to be as good a parent as my parents were. Will I succeed? Time will tell :)

"They're tiny and sweet and so nice to touch
and then they grow up and resent you so much.
And you're asking yourself "Why"?
And you cry and you cry and you cry"
(Phoebe Buffet)


*Actually I read one book a friend sent from America (The survival guide for neborn dads" which was great, especially as all my friends were shocked at some of the advice I thought was really practical. And I took a course in how to clean a baby and change it nappies. There was also lots of other stuff on health, like inoculation (they were against it) which I chose to ignore and immediately forgot :)

Besides, do we really want "good parenting" to be decided 50.5% of people, forcing their views upon the other 49.5%?

they call that democracy

How would you measure "being cured"?

when a trained doctor thinks your cured



Interestingly enough, the percentage chance that a child will be homosexual is no higher when raised by homosexual parents than by hetereosexual parents. I guess "gay'ism" isn't encouraged by homosexual parents.

bs considering no homosexuals have raised a child to adulthood yet




There is no cure for addiction

excuse me whilst I go use a nicotine patch, some willpower and an smokaholics anonymous group

methinks there are a lot of people in this thread who are NOT parents! ;)

they call that democracy

Yup, and this is why governments in this world don't run on true democracy, not even the US of A.

when a trained doctor thinks your cured

A trained doctor would first tell you that child abuse is not a disease and thus cannot be "cured". They would then say that it is evidence of an underlying psychological problem which, with therapy, you may be able to control, but will never be "cured". In this way, it is similar to addiction.

bs considering no homosexuals have raised a child to adulthood yet

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard anyone on these forums say, and I've heard some pretty silly things.

excuse me whilst I go use a nicotine patch, some willpower and an smokaholics anonymous group

It won't get rid of your addiction to nicotine, anymore than a "sober alcoholic" is no longer an alcoholic. The physical addiction can be removed, but the psychological addiction is one that the addict must fight for the rest of their lives.

methinks there are a lot of people in this thread who are NOT parents! ;)

I have to admit that I am one of them, but I do think that the "one-size-fits-all" approach to parenting is just silly. In fact, I think having a preconceived notion of what your child will be and trying to use a "one-size-fits-all" parenting style is the main problem with the way people try to raise children.

Yup, and this is why governments in this world don't run on true democracy, not even the US of A.

lol too much Michel moor if your implying that your country is run by the white rich oil tycoons well that’s because they vote



A trained doctor would first tell you that child abuse is not a disease and thus cannot be "cured". They would then say that it is evidence of an underlying psychological problem which, with therapy, you may be able to control, but will never be "cured". In this way, it is similar to addiction.

so someone with a psychological problem like afraid of heights will never be cured?

considering I used to be scared of heights I think your idea is down the toilet


That is the silliest thing I have ever heard anyone on these forums say, and I've heard some pretty silly things..

lol find me one person who was raised by two openly gays


It won't get rid of your addiction to nicotine, anymore than a "sober alcoholic" is no longer an alcoholic. The physical addiction can be removed, but the psychological addiction is one that the addict must fight for the rest of their lives.

you have to use will power for the first two weeks after that it gets easier

I have to admit that I am one of them, but I do think that the "one-size-fits-all" approach to parenting is just silly. In fact, I think having a preconceived notion of what your child will be and trying to use a "one-size-fits-all" parenting style is the main problem with the way people try to raise children.

One size fits all definitely does not work. Among most women I'm considered freaky for having a homebirth, for allowing my daughter to sleep in bed with me (part-time because she still nurses), for using cloth diapers etc. My methods wouldn't necessarily work for other people and vice versa. My parenting decisions have already earned me criticism on this forum.

There's something to be said for parental autonomy.

I think rather than licenses, it might be better if people were required to take a class on basic newborn care that would include infant CPR and first aid.

lol thats a bit mean and i mean right wing as in Facist- namely "control for benefit"

Whose benefit?

One size fits all definitely does not work. Among most women I'm considered freaky for having a homebirth, for allowing my daughter to sleep in bed with me (part-time because she still nurses), for using cloth diapers etc. My methods wouldn't necessarily work for other people and vice versa. My parenting decisions have already earned me criticism on this forum.

There's something to be said for parental autonomy.

I think rather than licenses, it might be better if people were required to take a class on basic newborn care that would include infant CPR and first aid.
I agree, and that's what my wife and I did. It was well worth it, even though the midwives in charge of the class were a bit too "earth mothery" for my taste (They would have been ideal for you, probably). But I learnt a lot (including using cloth and disposable nappies) and at least heard opinions on important subject (like inoculation) that helped me make up my mind (in this case disregard what they said).

Although I don't really believe in a licence it would be nice to have some sort of manditory session where the couple have to talk about what they want, and why they want children...rationalise it a little.

I think the same would work for marriage. I think they have it in Italy and their divorce rate is low...I hope it would work for children.

methinks there are a lot of people in this thread who are NOT parents! ;)

Definitely :D
I'm a GP and when I think of the huge range of parents I've seen rearing great kids (including a lesbian couple who had a child via IVF and were two of the most loving, competent parents I can remember) I realise what a ridiculous proposition started this thread! Sure there are people with bad parenting skills whose children get a raw deal, but that's where Health, Social and Educational services become important. My little boy has just turned one, and nothing could have prepared me for the trials, tribulations and joys of fatherhood.

I agree, and that's what my wife and I did. It was well worth it, even though the midwives in charge of the class were a bit too "earth mothery" for my taste (They would have been ideal for you, probably). But I learnt a lot (including using cloth and disposable nappies) and at least heard opinions on important subject (like inoculation) that helped me make up my mind (in this case disregard what they said).


Wow, do I really seem that much of a hippy? :) I'm not really, but from an economic standpoint, cloth is so much cheaper!
And just by hearing an opinion makes you more open minded than most of my acquaintences.

It's hard because you can never be sure who's opinion may be right. Are some more right than others? Even within families, what works for one baby may not work for the next baby. If you are going to set a standard for parenting, which method would you use? Personally, I'm a proponent of attachment parenting, because it's worked the best for my kids. I can't endorse it wholesale, because it may not work for other people.

Now some of you know me for various "right-wing" posts but this subject i find interesting- Parent licenses.

You need a license to drive, to own a shotgun even to own a dog yet it is a given right for most people to raise a child. I think if parents were given a test (much like a driving test, theory and a practical test.) then parenting standards would dramatically improve. The test wouldn't be too hard just hard enough to prove you would be a competant parent and could provide a stable enviroment for the child.

It would probably cut down on abuse, neglect and malpractice. Children would be given proper treatment and would be far less likely to turn into Anti-social yobs and criminals. We would have more respectable members of society.This is interesting. What would you do to people that have children even without a licence? Is there anything that will be done to stop people without a licence from getting children? If (I assume you are pro-life since you said you were right-wing, correct me if I'm mistaken) unsolicited parents bear children, where will these then go?

As for me, I'm in a country where "raising children is the natural right of the parents" is written in the constitution, so there is no way such parenting licences are possible in Germany, at least.

Wow, do I really seem that much of a hippy? :) I'm not really, but from an economic standpoint, cloth is so much cheaper!
And just by hearing an opinion makes you more open minded than most of my acquaintences.

It's hard because you can never be sure who's opinion may be right. Are some more right than others? Even within families, what works for one baby may not work for the next baby. If you are going to set a standard for parenting, which method would you use? Personally, I'm a proponent of attachment parenting, because it's worked the best for my kids. I can't endorse it wholesale, because it may not work for other people.
I can't tell if you're a hippy :) I wouldn't call these midwives hippies, either, they are just a certain type of German alternative type people (sorry can't really explain better).

Whose opinion is right? I think mine is: If it works for you then it is right for you!
Cloth nappies work for you so that's the way to go for you. They don't work for me, so I have to pay for the alternative.

Babies basically have three needs: Love, food and a dry bum :)
If you manage to provide it with all three you're half way there in my opinion. Later it get's more difficult as they'll also need guidance, but as I guess I'll learn how to give that while they learn to receive it.

About hearing other opinions - I think it's vitally important, as you need them to validate or correct your own. I must admit, though, I was pretty fed up after a while with everyone sticking their oar in!

methinks there are a lot of people in this thread who are NOT parents! ;)Doesn't necessarily mean they don't know anything about parenting though ;)

I can't tell if you're a hippy :) I wouldn't call these midwives hippies, either, they are just a certain type of German alternative type people (sorry can't really explain better).

Whose opinion is right? I think mine is: If it works for you then it is right for you!
Cloth nappies work for you so that's the way to go for you. They don't work for me, so I have to pay for the alternative.

Babies basically have three needs: Love, food and a dry bum :)
If you manage to provide it with all three you're half way there in my opinion. Later it get's more difficult as they'll also need guidance, but as I guess I'll learn how to give that while they learn to receive it.

About hearing other opinions - I think it's vitally important, as you need them to validate or correct your own. I must admit, though, I was pretty fed up after a while with everyone sticking their oar in!

I always got a kick out of reading articles from "experts" that were completely opposite.

The sleeping in bed w/ you issue was one. In the same magazine, I read an article that attacked sleeping in bed, and another that attacked not sleeping in bed.

lol too much Michel moor if your implying that your country is run by the white rich oil tycoons well that’s because they vote

No, actually, I am implying that my country is a representative republic governed under the rules laid out in a Constitution. It is not, nor was it ever meant to be, a true democracy.

so someone with a psychological problem like afraid of heights will never be cured?

I didn't say that. That is, of course, a completely different problem. And, of course, as a general rule, therapy for fear is not to "cure" the fear, but is to make the person confront that fear, face it, and learn to control it. A person with such a fear can be struck with it again, no matter how much it has been under control, especially in high-stress situations.

considering I used to be scared of heights I think your idea is down the toilet

And now you climb to the top of a skyscraper, step to the very edge, go up on tiptoe, wave your arms and say, "Look ma! I can fly!"?? Of course not. You have learned to control your fear. That doesn't mean that it won't crop up on you unexpectedly.

lol find me one person who was raised by two openly gays

This may be an interesting read for you:

http://www.jstor.org/view/00031224/di015126/01p0002h/8?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/AdvancedResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26All%3dhomosexual%2bparents%26Exact%3d%26One%3d%26None%3d%26sd%3 d2001/03%26ed%3d2001/05%26jt%3dDoes%2bThe%2bSexual%2bOrientation%2bOf%2bParents%2bMatter%253F%26ic%3d00031224%26node.Soci ology%3d1&frame=noframe&currentResult=00031224%2bdi015126%2b01p0002h%2b0%2cFFFFFF03&userID=aa8cfd31@emory.edu/01cce4403578cc105c62e0f9a&dpi=3&config=jstor

you have to use will power for the first two weeks after that it gets easier

Yes, it gets easier. However, that doesn't mean that you are "cured". It means that you have gotten better with dealing with the addiction.

This may be an interesting read for you:

http://www.jstor.org/view/00031224/di015126/01p0002h/8?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/AdvancedResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26All%3dhomosexual%2bparents%26Exact%3d%26One%3d%26None%3d%26sd%3 d2001/03%26ed%3d2001/05%26jt%3dDoes%2bThe%2bSexual%2bOrientation%2bOf%2bParents%2bMatter%253F%26ic%3d00031224%26node.Soci ology%3d1&frame=noframe&currentResult=00031224%2bdi015126%2b01p0002h%2b0%2cFFFFFF03&userID=aa8cfd31@emory.edu/01cce4403578cc105c62e0f9a&dpi=3&config=jstor

says in in wrong region :(

I suppose this is about some child being raised to adulthood by open gay parents

in which case this is just one case if you counted all the gay children that would be brought up by gay parents you would see more homosexuality

Now some of you know me for various "right-wing" posts but this subject i find interesting- Parent licenses.

You need a license to drive, to own a shotgun even to own a dog yet it is a given right for most people to raise a child. I think if parents were given a test (much like a driving test, theory and a practical test.) then parenting standards would dramatically improve. The test wouldn't be too hard just hard enough to prove you would be a competant parent and could provide a stable enviroment for the child.

It would probably cut down on abuse, neglect and malpractice. Children would be given proper treatment and would be far less likely to turn into Anti-social yobs and criminals. We would have more respectable members of society.

Regulation, via licensing, is the first step toward governmental control.
For that reason, I have not and will not register my weapons. It's no one's business what I own, for my own protection. You're SUPPOSED to register your dog. Many don't. I do to protect my dog if she's ever lost and found. Be very careful what you wish for; governments love licensing so they can get their mitts on your wallet and above all to know any potential enemies.

In Georgia and South Carolina, couples may receive a discount on their marriage license and civil ceremony (the actual courthouse 'wedding') if they attend 6 months of marriage counseling before the actual wedding.

Why not establish something like this for child-bearing couples?

In Georgia and South Carolina, couples may receive a discount on their marriage license and civil ceremony (the actual courthouse 'wedding') if they attend 6 months of marriage counseling before the actual wedding.

Why not establish something like this for child-bearing couples?

That's a good point. Catholics have to go through a pre-Cana course prior to marriage, which is a type of counseling.

says in in wrong region :(

I suppose this is about some child being raised to adulthood by open gay parents

in which case this is just one case if you counted all the gay children that would be brought up by gay parents you would see more homosexuality

Actually, it is a review article of all of the sociological studies done on those raised by gay parents.

The studies have almost invariably found that children raised by openly homosexual parents are more likely to be tolerant of alternative sexualities, but are no more likely to be homosexual themselves than children of heterosexual parents.

Actually, it is a review article of all of the sociological studies done on those raised by gay parents.

The studies have almost invariably found that children raised by openly homosexual parents are more likely to be tolerant of alternative sexualities, but are no more likely to be homosexual themselves than children of heterosexual parents.

Please stay on topic. This comment has nothing to do with Parental Licensing.

I agree that the licensing is rather unfeasible, however, I do think parents-to-be should be required to attend basic classes on various topics related to children before the birth, such as CPR, first aid, basic care, etc. If they had not attended said classes before the birth of the child, they would be fined a certain amount upon the birth.

Also, anyone in the following categories should be permanently forbidden from procreation or adoption, if they already have underage children, said children would be placed in foster care:


Convicted child abusers/molesters (I'd also include suspected child abusers, because honestly, its better to be safe than sorry)
Convicted rapists


Temporary ban on procreation or adoption:

For people who have been convicted of spreading hate/hate crimes
Drug addicts/alcoholics


For the first category, a permanent sterilization would be necessary, and for the second category, I know there are temporary sterilization methods (birth control essentially) that are currently available.

I don't think the government should tell you how to raise your child, but a lot of new parents these days don't know what to do and would appreciate the some pointers - especially young parents.

Please stay on topic. This comment has nothing to do with Parental Licensing.

Please attempt to follow the conversation. We are talking about parental licensing. Call to Power suggested that heterosexuality should be a requirement for a parental license. I am debating that point.

There is no reason why heterosexuality should be a requirement of who makes a good parent or not - one of my best friends has two moms, never had a dad, and she is "straight".

I'm sure there are plenty of people like her, and so the theory that "homosexuals breed more homosexuals" is a fallacy.

- Pity we can't make teaching tolerance mandatory

Why no one currently in the military? Are you talking female military members or couples w/ one member in? Does that include NG or Reserves?
oh youre right. not the reserve and not the national guard.

active military. if a person in the military applies for a permit, its denied.

not the active military because its bad for children to be moved every couple of years. not the military because they tend to be sent where their families cant follow. not the military because they can be killed in the line of duty and are with much greater frequency than other professions.

i am not in favor of these things, i just think that once you get started on who is "good" enough to procreate, there is no end of restrictions that can and will be put on it.

Now some of you know me for various "right-wing" posts but this subject i find interesting- Parent licenses.

You need a license to drive, to own a shotgun even to own a dog yet it is a given right for most people to raise a child. I think if parents were given a test (much like a driving test, theory and a practical test.) then parenting standards would dramatically improve. The test wouldn't be too hard just hard enough to prove you would be a competant parent and could provide a stable enviroment for the child.

It would probably cut down on abuse, neglect and malpractice. Children would be given proper treatment and would be far less likely to turn into Anti-social yobs and criminals. We would have more respectable members of society.


Here is a simpler idea: Glorify groin kicks. Make sure that the dumbest and most bizarre people think it's fun and rebellios to kick eachother in the groins. That way the worst of the lot won't have kids at all. :)

There is no reason why heterosexuality should be a requirement of who makes a good parent or not - one of my best friends has two moms, never had a dad, and she is "straight".

I'm sure there are plenty of people like her, and so the theory that "homosexuals breed more homosexuals" is a fallacy.

- Pity we can't make teaching tolerance mandatory

You better watch out. Dorksonia might accuse you of being off-topic.

=)

Don't know if this was brougt up. but what about Licence Renewals. and what happens to the kids should the Parents fail the renewal?

or if only one parent passes and the other fails. does that mean one one can raise the kids?

You people begin to scare me. :(
Makes me glad that I live in a country where any form of parental licenses would be unconstitutional. :)

It would probably cut down on abuse, neglect and malpractice. Children would be given proper treatment and would be far less likely to turn into Anti-social yobs and criminals. We would have more respectable members of society.

Yes ... because requiring a test to give a driver's license has cut down on the number of traffic accidents ....

Oh, never mind ... I'm sure it's been mentioned ...

Doesn't necessarily mean they don't know anything about parenting though ;)

Yeah, it does..lol

I babysat, took childcare before I chose my major. I can comfirm for you that anyone without their own children in their custody, really haven't a clue. I don't say that to seem all knowing or anything, because I'm not. However I am a mother of two kids and I had no idea till I had kids. You would be hard pressed to find any parent who did not agree with me on an honest level.

Now some of you know me for various "right-wing" posts but this subject i find interesting- Parent licenses.

You need a license to drive, to own a shotgun even to own a dog yet it is a given right for most people to raise a child. I think if parents were given a test (much like a driving test, theory and a practical test.) then parenting standards would dramatically improve. The test wouldn't be too hard just hard enough to prove you would be a competant parent and could provide a stable enviroment for the child.

It would probably cut down on abuse, neglect and malpractice. Children would be given proper treatment and would be far less likely to turn into Anti-social yobs and criminals. We would have more respectable members of society.

Sounds like something Maddox said. As a matter of fact, he DID say it! What a coincidence, oooooh, aaaaah. :rolleyes: maddox.xmission.com

I suspect that the people who support these "parenthood licensing" and "mandatory parenthood training" ideas have no children themselves.

I'm all for licensed breathing, myself. Anyone who doesn't pass a test on how to breathe will not be permitted to do so until they take a remedial training course.

:rolleyes:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=kidlicense

Scum - I agree, the whole idea of a parenting liscence seems . . . yeah. Just like a permit for breathing. Maybe they'll have a cop stand next to you until you're allowed to breathe-- and every time you go to take a breath they beat you with a racoon. Yup.

I think when you have a child, you should be ready to know how to be a parent-- if the instincts and help from few people alone don't serve as a good guide, then, go put 'em up for adoption, 'cause apparently you're a dimwit.

the nation

- convicted child abusers (who haven’t been cured)
- both parents unemployed (especially those ecotopians who think not having a job is saving the planet)
- family's with more kids than they can support
- gays (don't want gay'ism being encouraged)
- racists (who haven’t been cured)
- addicts (who haven’t been cured)
- teens
- homeless gypsies included because a child needs a safe environment with lots of room to explore (especially with the fact that they can just runaway from social services)


Ummm as far as I am concerned child abusers (I assume that you mean sexual abuse) are people who for some undefineable reason have a sexual preference for children, this is not an illness that can be cured, it is abhorent and in my opinion should warrant a death sentance, but it is not cureable, if someone has reached adulthood and is able to live a functioning 'normal' life and they have formed an opinion that sex with children is an ok thing, then it is much the same as the now outdated and offensive opinion that homosexuality was an illness that could be cured.....and please don't imagine that I am equating homosexuality with child abuse, I am most certainly not, but what I am trying to say is...you cant 'cure' a homosexual, you cant 'cure' a person who has a warped sexual preference for children, there is no drug that stops it and makes them see the error of their ways.

Much the same way as you cant 'cure' racists.....you can educate...but a bigoted and evil thought process is not something that can be totally removed, it is usually a long standing and deeply held, albeit ignorant, belief. My father is a nice man, but he holds some opinions that many (including me) consider to be racist, in that he thinks its ok to say and think certain things in a blanket way, a way in which it has to be said, many people of his generation think, and yet he does NOT consider himself to be racist at all.

I am sorry for going off topic btw.

I am a Mum of three wonderful and beautiful children, two girls and a boy. I was single when I got pregnant the first time. I am in a relativley low income group according to the national surveys...But I have my own home and car, my kids eat well and have enough clothes and a warm clean bed. I also sometimes shout at them, sometimes I am grumpy and sometimes I am a lousy Mum. But I adore them and would willingly give up my life to protect them. My son has ADHD and a form of Autism, he does not always behave well....but I am a good mum, but by who's standard? I have kids who do stuff I am not happy with at times, they dont always do as they are told. My son did not sleep at all when he was a baby...but it was not because I was doing anything wrong..he is a person in his own right as much as I am, and I am certainly not the same as other people. As much as I would like in a perfect world for all parents to be good parents, who am I to judge? with my own standards? How do I know that my ideas are the best thing for my children? I just know that I love them more than life itself and to be honest...what more can I ask of any other parent?

rant over, sorry

:)

Well, I don't really see any way to monitor this. What happens if an already pregnant woman doesn't prove to be a good mother by the tests standards, or how do you keep good mothers from becoming pregnant.

A lot of women learn to be good mothers through their pregnancy, especially young mothers, this would just seem like an odd precaution to me. Especially with all of the options for women who don't think they can raise a child, such as the Hospital or Adoption Agency drop-off policy in the States.

Whose benefit?

benefit for the greater good. A perfect example is stopping a man commiting suicide and showing him how to enjoy life again. At first he wants to die, you are controlling him to help him

Now some of you know me for various "right-wing" posts but this subject i find interesting- Parent licenses.

You need a license to drive, to own a shotgun even to own a dog yet it is a given right for most people to raise a child. I think if parents were given a test (much like a driving test, theory and a practical test.) then parenting standards would dramatically improve. The test wouldn't be too hard just hard enough to prove you would be a competant parent and could provide a stable enviroment for the child.

It would probably cut down on abuse, neglect and malpractice. Children would be given proper treatment and would be far less likely to turn into Anti-social yobs and criminals. We would have more respectable members of society.

While this was a brilliant idea put forth by Keanu Reeves in the movie Parenthood, there are some intrinsic problems with it.

Say someone fails the test? What then? Are they sterilized immediately?

What about the fringes of society? Many of these people don't have a driver's license, yet drive, down a hunting or gun license, yet hunt and shoot, and probably their dogs are not licensed either. (The dog license issue is entirely different. It isn't for the owner. It's a certification that the dog is okay, not the person who owns it).

And even if you say, "You must be this old to have children and apply for a license", teenagers will continue having sex and in all likely hood the rate of teen pregnancy will go up. Because teenagers will show us what they think of your stupid licenses.

This would be a bad idea. I think you would see the reverse of your desired effect.

benefit for the greater good. A perfect example is stopping a man commiting suicide and showing him how to enjoy life again. At first he wants to die, you are controlling him to help him


Bad example. Many suicide victims never return to a healthy, happy, normal life. They no longer contribute to society. Why stop them? If there really were people that cared in their lives, they would have noticed before it got to the suicide stage.

I have to admit that I am one of them, but I do think that the "one-size-fits-all" approach to parenting is just silly. In fact, I think having a preconceived notion of what your child will be and trying to use a "one-size-fits-all" parenting style is the main problem with the way people try to raise children.

As parent of 4 kids, I agree. And I'll tell you...you can't even use a one size fits all your kids approach. Each of my children is different in their own ways. Personalities, interests, problem resolution. They are all their own persons (even my 3 year old daughter who wants to grow to be the girl that hands out balloons at the grocery store...such high hopes).

I drives me nuts when I see little kids with their parents and everyone is dressed alike and all their names start with the same letter. It looks more like Hitler's dream for the nuclear family than something loving and caring.

Children are not show pieces...

I've heard this suggestion numerous times and I still think it's a completely dumb idea. Many pregnancies are unplanned. So what do you do when somebody gets pregnant? Even if somebody was not fit to be a parent under the test, do you honestly think it would be a good idea to take the kid away? It would end up happening so often that there wouldn't be enough places to adopt and before you know it you have hundreds of thousands of children languishing in overcrowded children's homes.

Also, what would constitute a good parent and who would judge this? I don't trust any government enough to give them the power to refuse somebody the right to have children. It may seem all reasonable at first, but this kind of power could easily be abused. For example, you could be part of a protest movement that's troubling the government. So the government moves defines members of that movement as not being fit to have children. Just one example of the many instances of corruption and malpractice that would happen.

This country (But I dunno about yours) also has a shortage of children. We need to increase our declining birth rate, the last thing we need is to make it harder to have children.

benefit for the greater good.

Do you mean a Benthamite "greatest happiness for the greatest number", or for a smaller number if the good itself is greater. Perhaps that's not clear. Think of a country of a 100 people and goodness that can be scored 1 to 10. Which is better, 25 of those people getting a 10 score of "good" and 75 of them getting a 2 score of good (a total of 25x10+75x2=400) or all of them getting a score of 3.5 for a total good of 350?

Most people would probably adopt the utilitarian position, but there is always a risk that mild happiness for the majority can lead to decisions that cause intense misery to the minority. It is easy to think of many examples of this in world history.

Thinking of parenting licences, I think that the majority of people might find their lives to be a bit better (you are assuming that removing children frm their natural parents and having them brought up by the state or adoptive parents necessarily improves the way they grow up - and i do not think this would actually be the case) but some people would suffer the intense pain of having a child they loved very much taken from them, not to mention the distress caused to the children in this scenario.

Over all parenting licences would be hurtful, divisive, expensive, ineffective and inhumane. Other than that a pretty good idea, keep 'em coming.