|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 10, 2003 19:53:19 GMT -5
My health teacher brought up a minor point in class. There is no "license" of any sort if you wish to have children. You must hold a license to drive, and even to cut hair of others, but not when you want to have children. Do you think that it would be better for society if the government can regulate conception and prevent potential bad parents from having children until they have proven that they can care for the child and create a balanced and responsible individual? As long as this isn't taken to the extreme (ie Nazism), and the government is careful to base judgement only on parental behaviors and ability (and not on anything like religion, race etc.), then it might be a good thing. ::whew:: (that was a long question)
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Oct 10, 2003 20:00:20 GMT -5
I noticed that too. I think a "parenting class" would be a wonderful idea! However, it very well may conflict with many religions and beliefs, so I don't think it would work out very well. But what if people have children and they don't pass the class? You can't put them in jail, and you can't sue them (how will they support the child?)...
|
|
|
Post by ~SC~ on Oct 10, 2003 20:46:29 GMT -5
i think that this is a good idea (mostly) i mean, a lot of young parents split up and the baby ends up being, well, impaired
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Oct 10, 2003 20:58:47 GMT -5
ha. no one can judge what will happen thruout a childs entire life. Having kids should be entirely personal. The government foesn't make people all wear the same sorts of underwear, and it doesn't restrict what you can or can't eat.
The government gives out marraige lisences but it's not like they screen people for how well they get along. I mean come on, would you want the government to have any say in whether or not you could marry the person you loved? It shouldn't be any different for children!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Salome on Oct 10, 2003 21:30:03 GMT -5
interesting idea, in theory it might be good, but i dont think hter e is any practical way it could work
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 10, 2003 21:40:42 GMT -5
True, true, but the difference between what one can eat or what underwear one can wear, is that that it only effects that person. With parenting, the responsibility goes beyond that.
If they cannot care for their children well, that child may not develop as well as others that have better examples to follow. The presentations in health class that YWCA gave, mentioned that many sexual abusers become abusive when they are abused themselves as a child. Hence, what parents do will effect others.
Oh yes, whether they can get along is not as relevent. As long as the person that desires children, and has the ability to care for them responsibly is what is important. There is nothing that would disclude single parents if they are still responsible.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Oct 10, 2003 23:00:25 GMT -5
Does anyone ever have a perfect life? no..... that's part of reality.
I four legal system works the way it's supposed to then sex offenders won't have the oppertunity to have children.
Also there is indeed no way they could enforce such a license... you'd have to regulate people havin sex (haha)
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 11, 2003 23:04:12 GMT -5
Does anyone ever have a perfect life? no..... that's part of reality. Of course, that is why this should be regulated. I'm not calling for banning of having children when the relationship is just a wee bit off perfect. That would be too oppressive. But if the parent is taking drugs or abusing their children on a previous occasion, they should be stopped somehow. Not everyone has a perfect life at school, but I do not call for passing grades to be handed out to everyone regardless of performance. Ah, yes, well that is something to be worked out later. I'm really just asking whether it would be good if it can be done in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Quack on Oct 12, 2003 15:52:29 GMT -5
Perhaps there is no one who can definately say they're entitled to decide who can have children and who can't, and thus issue a Procreation License.
But perhaps, what can happen is you can Child Insurance or something like that, similar to Vehicle Insurance. What this would do is when someone wants a child, they can apply for an insurance. They get judged by a jury of somesort who, as a whole, judges the parenting abilities, and then, the jury decides how much the future-parent needs to pay to maintain insurance benefits according to what the disaster likeliness concerning the child his going to be.
The parents least likely to be bad parents are charged the least, whereas the ones most likely to be bad parents are charged the most. When something happens, the parents can get the insurance benefits.
Parents would want to be issued the insurance for coverage of whatever might go on. Since the better-percieved parents pay the least in insurance for the same coverage, it would give future parents an incentive to try to be better parents.
Perhaps the jury of Insurance agents is made up of old, experienced parents.
Then again, Jeff's original question brings up the question about what is more influencial on a child's behavior: nature, or nurture?
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Oct 12, 2003 17:47:54 GMT -5
insurance? what's this you ain't ever heard of NORMAL health insurance for a child?
besides... it would be like putting a tax on children... how are you going to make everyone pay an extra cost in order to have a child...?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 13, 2003 0:20:03 GMT -5
I think that what is meant is that if the parent is not deemed qualified in terms of parenting skill, then they must pay higher than normal costs.
I dunno how exactly it might be enforced. Perhaps a minor fine if you have a child when you weren't supposed too. If the person keeps purposely having children against the rules, they can be (temporarly - we aren't that cruel) sterilized.
Again, this is not meant to penalize people with less than perfect relationships, rather to weed out those few that might have lots of children, not take care of them and abuse their welfare money.
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Oct 13, 2003 20:35:13 GMT -5
Any such regulations would fail when faced with punishing violators. Would you sterilize the "unfit", or remove children to orphanages? Also, poverty would overbearingly be the deciding factor in the ability to effectively raise and nurture the young. Raising children requires time and money, but they would have none, because they would spend all of their time trying to earn money that's not enough. What would happen is the creation of an elite class of well-to-do childbearers and an oppressed class of those who by no fault of their own are forbidden from concieving. Also total enforcement would be impossible, and the poor have the least access to contraceptives and education about birth control, so there would always be an underground population of "forbidden" children who would grow up in ghettos in desperate fear of the authorities, who in enforcing these policies would have to conduct DEA style raids on suspected "free-breeders" to conduct forced abortions, or if not that, then take away newborns from their mothers to be raised in large government orphanages. Thus a seemingly well-intentioned idea, the betterment of mankind, would turn into a baby-snatching appartheid system that destroys the sanctity of motherhood.
--Also, it runs a bit too close to the eugenics movement, except instead of focusing on those who are thought to be medically or racially unfit to reproduce, it would encompass those viewed as being sociologically or economically unfit.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 14, 2003 0:21:55 GMT -5
Any such regulations would fail when faced with punishing violators. Would you sterilize the "unfit", or remove children to orphanages? No, I do not think that sterilizing the "unfit" is ethical. What I want this for is not to decide on "good" genes and "bad" genes per se (although that might be the eventual consequence ) But rather to prevent the parents who cannot take care of their children and help them grow into good citizens, from having children. Well, poverty certainly won't be an effect of this policy. It is already bad as it is, but the licensing ideally would not pay as much attention to this factor because often good parenting does not count only on money. I think there will be other ideas to cure poverty on a seperate front. Well, since this isn't based on money, an elite class probably wouldn't rise. A class of good potential parents might rise above those who are not good caretakers. But this is not at all genetic. They can improve their own behavior and your own knowlege if they like to. Remember, this license is based on the ability to teach and care for your children well. Not on race and other traits you cannot change. Whoa, that is getting facist here Those who breed outside the law, so to speak, probably won't be subjected to that. I am not a proponet of forced abortions or forbidden children concentration camps. If someone has a child outside of license it is okay. It is only when they keep having such children repeatedly that it becomes a problem. Preferably, everyone will have access to education and contraceptives so that no one will be without a "license of procreation" to begin with. The license to procreate is similar to a high school diploma in a sense. We are all supposed to have one, so even if most jobs reject outright those that don't have a diploma, it does not really matter to us. (idealistically speaking since some people do drop out of school) But a sociological problem can be cured since it is not dependent on a persons genes, as race or phyisical traits are. Any person can be a parent if they have the right skills. And yes, economical shortcomings are present but that will have to be another problem to be solved on a seperate note.
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Oct 14, 2003 21:50:11 GMT -5
Ok, I guess I was a bit over the top, and maybe having a parenting license could be like having a driver's license...sort of...
But still, parenting licenses would have to come after some more immediate problems are fixed, so that they would no longer be a factor.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 14, 2003 22:07:04 GMT -5
Well, yes that is correct. Povery would have to be fixed as well as equal educational opportunities. But once these problems are fixed (which they probably will in the future) wouldn't a license to procreate be a good idea for the advancment of society?
|
|