License to give birth?

[CoffeeSaint]

And they could decide that the US has too many caucasian kids so no license for you white people. They could decide after they looked into the couple's background that since there was cancer, mental illness, or other diseases, no child for you. What an insane slippery slope.

I agree with OS here, this is an Authoritarians wet dream and the US needs no part of it.

So you'd prefer to stick with the system we have now: as long as you can rut successfully, you should be entrusted with raising a child? Yippee.

Have you seen Idiocracy?

[PatrickHenry]

Reproduction is a fundamental right, absolutely. Parenting is not. Here is the extremely specific reason why the right to raise a child should be limited: the child. The child has rights, just as much as the parent does, and as it stands now, the syustem protects only the rights of the parents, not of the children; the children only receive protection after it becomes known that abuse has taken place. But there is no guarantee that abuse will come to the attention of the proper authorities, nor that they will find sufficient proof of abuse, nor that they will take the proper action. In every case when the authorities get it wrong, a child suffers -- and because childhood is so important to our later successes and failures, this is a time when any potential hazard should be taken seriously. Not that every single "risky" parent should be stripped of children irrevocably; again, I have suggested no specifics beyond illiterate drug addicted felons being on the "No Child" list -- and that is also negotiable, depending on the definition of the terms involved and the specifics of any particular case.

The idea itself is the same: the rights of the child should be protected from bad parents who would infringe upon them. Who is to do this, if not us -- and by "Us," I mean "You and me and the guy down the street," not "My Death Squads and Stormtroopers."

What about licensing to assure the safety of children in specific? Licensing for day care, for instance?

Well, you are corresponding with a licensed foster father. I love my daughter and our home's license needs renewing every year, so I jump through the hoops. But it is definitely the State of Hawaii, not the folks in the neighborhood who license my home.

And my daughter's previous foster home was abusive...I don't see how licensing does squat for kids.

No, you are not wrong, unless you imagine I prefer the state solve every single problem. I do not. Are you so fanatical that you brook no middle ground -- it is either no state interference or Communism?

I teach high school students. I don't trust that parenting classes would be enough, because what would be the penalty of failing the class? No diploma? A lower GPA? These things will not act as a deterrent to would-be parents, nor will they protect potential victims from those bad parents.

Take away the idea of the state controlling this, and would you still oppose it? Why? What would be your alternate suggestion for the protection of children? Do you think our system has done this successfully?

I know you are a teacher. I think that parenting tecniques are teachable and learnable, and most folks would be better parents if they learned a few things. Why the resistance?

A requirement for a parent's license will be a law, right? Passed by a legislature and signed by an executive? How will you enforce it if not by the authority of the State? Anything less will not be enforceable and will be ignored...

[Epistemologist]

A required course in the basics of discipline, and a test that must be passed in order to certify in parenting would help alleviate these difficulties by giving the parents a knowledge base to work from.

The vegans killing babies thread is another example of why this course should be required. If child nutrition were apart of this required course they would not have been as likely to let their child die.

Oh no, the courses do nothing. They're merely cosmetic solutions that are taught by people/sources (in case it's an online course) who are incompetent and merely out to get money, teaching simple stuff. Obviously, if I was given a question like:

Timmy just peed on the couch. Do you:
A. Beat him with your belt
B. Shout at him and kick him out of the house.
C. Reason with him and explain why peeing on the couch is bad, while maintaining a healthy relationship.
D. Make him clean it off with his tongue.
E. Spank him and make him never tell anyone.

I'd be able to see what answer they want me to pick just to get the license. I mean, of course, questions aren't this stupid, but this is an illustrative example; the courses in drug and alcohol safety that are required to learn driving are just as ill-sighted and myopic.

But I agree, many people shouldn't parent. There's more to parenting than just biologically fathering and mothering someone.

[fushigi]

If you just want to make a persuasive argument, that's simple. Bring up China. In China, parents have to register with the local Family Planning Office before they can have the "right" to get pregnant--it's all part of the One Child Policy. Simply pointing this fact out and asking the rhetorical question, "Do we really want to copy Chinese family planning policy?" while noting the nasty results of the OCP--fines for having more than one child, forced abortions and sterilizations, infanticide, and so forth, should be enough to win the debate for you.

If you pop in your school library they should have a copy of The Handmaid's Tale. Quoting that would get you points from your teacher as well:

Atwood presents here a fable of the near future. In the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, far-right Schlafly/Falwell-type ideals have been carried to extremes in the monotheocratic government. The resulting society is a feminist's nightmare: women are strictly controlled, unable to have jobs or money and assigned to various classes: the chaste, childless Wives; the housekeeping Marthas; and the reproductive Handmaids, who turn their offspring over to the "morally fit" Wives.

Again, go with the rhetorical, "Is this the future we want?"

Slippery slope / appeal to emotion argument. Gets 'em every time.

fushigi

[StrongHeartsWin]

...asking the rhetorical question, "Do we really want to copy Chinese family planning policy?" while noting the nasty results of the OCP--fines for having more than one child, forced abortions and sterilizations, infanticide, and so forth, should be enough to win the debate for you.

Fushigi, this begs the question, what social and economic predicament would China be in now if it had never gone to the one baby policy? Do drastic situations ever call for drastic measures? I think they do, but we have learned to demonize such actions; but is it appropriate to demonize those actions when the life boat is being swamped because there are just too many on board?

[fushigi]

Oh, I'm just speaking from the perspective of somebody who likes to win debates. :)

Of course, my argument is TOTALLY fallacious, but saltinespike's classmates won't know what hit 'em.

Yeah, China's birth rate during the Mao years (under "the more the merrier" policy) was around 6.0 per family. Obviously, something had to be done. Though generally I'm against population control measures for reasons of privacy and freedom.

[CoffeeSaint]

If you pop in your school library they should have a copy of The Handmaid's Tale. Quoting that would get you points from your teacher as well:Again, go with the rhetorical, "Is this the future we want?"

Speaking as a lit geek (Yeah, that's right -- I bite the heads off of books.) you don't want to use The Handmaid's Tale in this example; that's the story of the women, not the children, and the depiction of breeding in that book is definitely not pro-family. I'd recommend "Brave New World," ion which babies are grown in laboratories, taught subliminally to obey, and categorized into specific roles in society that will determine their places in society for life. That's a good example of government control of reproduction gone wild.

Slippery slope / appeal to emotion argument. Gets 'em every time.

fushigi

Thanks for the insight on how you argue. :)

[CoffeeSaint]

Well, you are corresponding with a licensed foster father. I love my daughter and our home's license needs renewing every year, so I jump through the hoops. But it is definitely the State of Hawaii, not the folks in the neighborhood who license my home.

And my daughter's previous foster home was abusive...I don't see how licensing does squat for kids.

An excellent example of why the government should not be in charge of licensing. I have no problem with that.

I know you are a teacher. I think that parenting tecniques are teachable and learnable, and most folks would be better parents if they learned a few things. Why the resistance?

I think parenting classes would be most useful, but I don't think they'll solve the problem. I think they will work to fill in the gaps in the knowledge of kids who want to become parents. Of course, if they want to become parents, and want to be good parents, then they can fill in the gaps themselves without the kids suffering -- I think that's what probably 75% of new parents do with their first child, figure it out as they go along. I don't think parenting classes will work well with the kids who don't care about parenting, and those are exactly the ones I worry about, because those are the ones that generally become abusive and negligent.

A requirement for a parent's license will be a law, right? Passed by a legislature and signed by an executive? How will you enforce it if not by the authority of the State? Anything less will not be enforceable and will be ignored...

Okay, then I just can't win. Either it has to be tyranny, or it will never happen. That's a pretty fatalistic view of society, isn't it? That we can't actually change anything without becoming tyrants?

In that case, I'm going to go with tyranny (though I don't see it as such) in order to improve the lives of some people. Just like public education is tyrannical, and beneficial, and universal health care would be tyrannical, and beneficial. Same thing here.

[Praxius]

A teacher of mine (I go to high school) assigns us to do half-page journals on modern issues. Reads about them in the Las Vegas Sun (our newspaper). Today's journal said that lawmakers are debating on whether or not people should be required, by law, to abtain a license to give birth.

It's pretty stupid to me. Sounds like another way for the government to scheme us out of more money. Your thoughts?

It wouldn't happen.... sure somthing similar is in China, but China isn't democratic now is it?

They wouldn't get away with something like that..... you can't lisence out something that humans do naturally.

Not only that, but it wouldn't be practical in the first place, esspecially in the time we're about to head into.

All the baby-boomers are going to be long gone in a decade or so, or into retirement at least, so there is going to be a large shortage of workers to fill the gaps. To add to that, todays generation is waiting longer to have less children in a family. And on top of all that, with the conclusion of the enviromental damage that has occured to the Earth, I imagine there will be medical issues with procreation, due to climate change, contaminated water, new diseses coming about, infertillity, etc.... add a lisence on top of all this kinda just sounds stupid.

Here's a simple question:

How many people do you think would want lisenced pregnancies? Not many..... so why the hell would they get the opportunity to pass something like this, without getting their asses fired? Chances are, they wouldn't..... or there's be a lot of crap going down.

[Osborn F Enready]

Coffee said:
Sounds excellent to me. How about the jury of our peers determines our fitness and uses the courts to prove it beyond reasonable doubt? Would that answer your objections?

That is how it ALREADY WORKS, once a CRIME has been alledgedly comitted, and the CASE IS BEFORE THE COURT.

Coffee said:
Ah, yes; it must be witnessed. And yet, the very right to privacy, which we both support, means that what goes on in a family behind closed doors cannot be witnessed. Once it is witnessed, it is often too late: the vast majority of neglect and abuse cases are never heard about, never reported, or are reported after it has already been going on for years. The damage has already been done. The child's rights have already been infringed. Why can't we prevent that from happening?

Because its unenforceable, it gives power to the state or fed the state or fed is BOUND not to accept.

The nation is not all seeing, all knowing, nor can it be, nor should it be.

As we have seen with EVERYTHING ELSE, once the state or fed has the power, it will be abused and "selectively" enforced with great inefficiency and little scruples.

Its like a request chit for more descrimination at behest of the Fed or state.

Coffee said:
Would I take a child home with me? No. I don't consider myself a fit parent, which is part of the reason why I have no children.

Ditto, so proof positive that people CAN ACCEPT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, while others shrug them.

Coffee said:
Would I pay taxes for this, give up my time to serve the courts in whatever capacity I could? Yes.

Good for you, I won't, and in fact would rebel against it at all levels.

Coffee said:
Would I be the one to tell the parent that he or she had failed to meet the requirements, and drag the child out of the screaming mother's arms? Yes. Is that what you're getting at?

Nothing like thinking you know what is best for everyone, right, and the using government force to enforce YOUR subjective morals?

What a "saint".

Coffee said:
Thank you for your support. I apologize for speaking rashly against the Constitution, so don't hide behind it.

I am not hiding behind it, I am standing ON IT as does ALL VALID LAW in this nation, and I don't support the idea.

Coffee said:
Now let's stick to whether or not it is the right thing to do.

Ok. No, I don't think it is the right thing to do, at all.

Coffee said:
It isn't a question of guilt, because we are not speaking of criminal action. It is a question of fitness, of capability in shouldering an awesome responsibility. Do we not have the right to protect children from harm? Even from potential harm?

No, not if it means re-writing the basis of our laws, which is founded on the SELF EVIDENT TRUTHS that all people are born with equal natural rights, under NATURES god, thereby, nature determines whether or not they are fit. Citizens are responsible for presuming the innocence of others until a crime is witnessed, or their rights are infringed.

Once again.....

This is not a case for "pre-emptive" law, any more than Iraq was a case for "pre-emptive" war, though many would argue that it is much like the latter.

You are trying to put across the idea that people shouldn't be considered "fit" to raise a child by the state or federal government until passing some "test" that will no doubt be held, changed and later further expanded on under the umbrella or auspice of government power.

I am as against that as any other act that violates the rights of any individual, including the children you are trying to protect.

Noble intentions, flawed execution, illegal means.

Coffee said:
So tell me: why don't children have the right to be safe from bad parenting?

Because, as we all know, good kids sometimes come from bad parenting, as much as sometimes bad kids come from good parenting.
Every child is an INDIVIDUAL, and deals with life differently.

People in this nation have RIGHTS, not entitlements.

You have a RIGHT to object to harm coming to ANY child. You also have the right to TAKE THAT CASE TO COURT, to SEEK JUSTICE in the name of the child, for the childs sake.

However......

No person, court or government has the right to declare "who can and who can't" have a child without legitimate reason to believe or prove they "can't be" good parents.

[Osborn F Enready]

Coffee said:
So you'd prefer to stick with the system we have now: as long as you can rut successfully, you should be entrusted with raising a child? Yippee.

Have you seen Idiocracy?

Yes, I think I am seeing some proposed right now, by the OP.

[Zhavric]

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I am all for individuals requiring a liscence to have children. Here's why.

Adoption agency: "Well, Mr. and Mrs. Doe, it's not good. We've reviewed your application to adopt an infant and looked into your personal lives to see if you are fit to recieve a child. What we found was, frankly, shocking. Mr. Doe, you've been convicted of several misdemeanors as well as receiving a felony conviction for abusing your nephew. Sexually. Mrs. Doe, we see that you've been bankrupt, ran a prostitution ring and once left your own baby in a dumpster. There's is absolutely no way our agency is going to place a child in your care."

Mrs. Doe: "CENSORED you, ya dumb CENSORED. We're gone back to da trailer an' we's gonna make ourselvs a little bundle o' joy. C'mon John, ya ignant CENSORED. We's gonna bump uglies."

The above is hyperbole. It's doubtful that such individuals would attempt to adopt a child.

However, there are many people in the world who, if they attempted to, would never be deemed fit to be responsible for an infant. Why should such individuals be able to have children?

Kids are very simple machines. Like any simple machine, they're very easy to break.