License for Parenting

[m52nickerson]

What do you guys think? Should people have to get a license to become parents? Could we even enact such laws, or do they violate our basic rights?

No people should not need to get such a license.  No we could not intact such a law and have any type of meaningful enforcement without trampling on basic human rights.

[TenfoldMaquette]

As people in this thread have already said, the only way this would even be remotely feasible would be if the de-facto state of humanity was sterilized with an option to reverse the process upon acquiring your "licence-to-make-babies" slip. We do (technically) have that option in existence right now; there is a form of male sterilization procedure that is ridiculously cheap, non invasive, has no side effects in its current form, and wears off in roughly a decade if it isn't deliberately reversed beforehand. Administer this to kids around age 8-10 and you have a population of males incapable of siring children until they reach adulthood.

Should people be required to have a license to have kids? I'm not sure. I've certainly seen my fair share of unfit parents; I myself was raised by two of the very same. I can honestly say that my parents - poor, drug addled, and crazy - should not have been allowed to have kids. But I can't necessarily say that requiring a license to have children is the answer.

Perhaps, instead, the solution is to channel our efforts into creating a society where the "fitness" of a parent doesn't factor into the equation when it comes to raising children.

[TheReasonator]

As people in this thread have already said, the only way this would even be remotely feasible would be if the de-facto state of humanity was sterilized with an option to reverse the process upon acquiring your "licence-to-make-babies" slip. We do (technically) have that option in existence right now; there is a form of male sterilization procedure that is ridiculously cheap, non invasive, has no side effects in its current form, and wears off in roughly a decade if it isn't deliberately reversed beforehand. Administer this to kids around age 8-10 and you have a population of males incapable of siring children until they reach adulthood.

Should people be required to have a license to have kids? I'm not sure. I've certainly seen my fair share of unfit parents; I myself was raised by two of the very same. I can honestly say that my parents - poor, drug addled, and crazy - should not have been allowed to have kids. But I can't necessarily say that requiring a license to have children is the answer.

Perhaps, instead, the solution is to channel our efforts into creating a society where the "fitness" of a parent doesn't factor into the equation when it comes to raising children.

Unless we can just take the child away the fitness of their parent will always be relevant.

[TenfoldMaquette]

Unless we can just take the child away the fitness of their parent will always be relevant.

We can do that now.  ::shrug::

But I was talking in terms of pure speculative fantasy. I meant more that if our society actually placed child care as a top priority on a societal level, then we could implement programs to make the fitness of the parent essentially irrelevant. Free, no-stigma child care services, counselling for mental/drug issues, job placement programs, proper emphasis on education of both child and parent, etc - everything geared toward making a stable, fit society completely capable of raising a child regardless of the fitness of the parent. Yes, it does require relinquishing a measure of autonomy (but really, do we want to give people the right to ruin other people just because they birthed them?), and is impractical to the point of impossibility when you factor humanity (a species inherently selfish) into the scenario.

[Cataclysm]

I fully support making the requirements to reproduce every bit as strict as the requirements to adopt. However, I don't see any way to enforce it beyond either forced abortions (unethical) or sterilizing everyone at birth and then reversing it once they become licensed (impractical).

You can't compare adoptive parents to biological parents. Biological parents have a natural drive to protect and raise their offspring and have been bonding before birth. There are exceptions, and adoptive parents should exist to be a safety net, but the two shouldn't be compared. People who fail as parents should have their rights stripped away, but having children shouldn't require anything other than fertility.

As people in this thread have already said, the only way this would even be remotely feasible would be if the de-facto state of humanity was sterilized with an option to reverse the process upon acquiring your "licence-to-make-babies" slip. We do (technically) have that option in existence right now; there is a form of male sterilization procedure that is ridiculously cheap, non invasive, has no side effects in its current form, and wears off in roughly a decade if it isn't deliberately reversed beforehand. Administer this to kids around age 8-10 and you have a population of males incapable of siring children until they reach adulthood.

If you're only doing this to males, that is just sexist. It won't stop stupid women from getting pregnant. Plus, this procedure would be expensive on a large scale.

I don't mind sterilizing criminals however.

[Witchyjoshy]

I don't mind sterilizing criminals however.

I do, since that's a violation of basic human rights.

[TenfoldMaquette]

If you're only doing this to males, that is just sexist. It won't stop stupid women from getting pregnant. Plus, this procedure would be expensive on a large scale.

It's only being done to males because it only can be done to males - the procedure in question ONLY works on men because it was developed to give men an option besides hoping their partner is packing the requisite contraception to avoid an unwanted baby. I'm referencing an actual thing here. This treatment exists (in clinical trials) IRL: Vasalgel

And I'm not sure how "stupid women" could still get pregnant when every male is sterile.

[Smurfette Principle]

Here's my problem: a lot of what screws people up in life can also be good things, or completely neutral things, or unavoidable things.

Poverty can definitely screw you up as a kid, but that's not really something you can control if you lose your job in an economic crash.
Being a minority can subject you to all sorts of horrible things, but that's not the fault of the parents.
Hearing your parents argue can cause problems (I know it has for me and how I see relationships), but you can't be perfectly placid in all things, that's just not possible.
Having a mental illness or coming from an abusive family can make you abusive, but arguing that the former shouldn't have children has been tried before (it's called eugenics), and the latter is just silly because plenty of people in abusive families try to not be abusive.
A lot of people could argue that gay families or poly families or religious families or single-parent families or teenage families can screw you up, but plenty of people come from those backgrounds not screwed up.

The thing is, there's no such thing as a perfect parent. There's not even a set standard for being a good parent. I think that my parents ultimately are good parents even though they are terrible sometimes, and I know that even though my boyfriend's parents are lovely people, they have a couple of issues (like not really caring where boyfriend went to college) that could have long-lasting effects. You can't really know what's going to take root in someone's psyche. You can try your hardest but you can't really be a good parent according to a standard, because the standards are all over the place.

I agree that we need more resources to help families (welfare, child care, a foster system that isn't fucked to hell, all that jazz) but that has nothing to do with the individual parent. That has to do with what our priorities are and how we allocate resources.

If you're only doing this to males, that is just sexist. It won't stop stupid women from getting pregnant. Plus, this procedure would be expensive on a large scale.

It's only being done to males because it only can be done to males - the procedure in question ONLY works on men because it was developed to give men an option besides hoping their partner is packing the requisite contraception to avoid an unwanted baby. I'm referencing an actual thing here. This treatment exists (in clinical trials) IRL: Vasalgel

And I'm not sure how "stupid women" could still get pregnant when every male is sterile.

You realize that it hasn't gone through clinical trials yet, right?

I don't mind sterilizing criminals however.

Yes, because as we all know, no person is ever incarcerated wrongly, based on incompetent or malevolent law enforcement.

[Cataclysm]

If you're only doing this to males, that is just sexist. It won't stop stupid women from getting pregnant. Plus, this procedure would be expensive on a large scale.

And I'm not sure how "stupid women" could still get pregnant when every male is sterile.

Because not every male is sterile. There are those men who pass the test.

I don't mind sterilizing criminals however.

I do, since that's a violation of basic human rights.

I think I missed the part where locking someone in a metal box wasn't a violation of their rights.

[rookie]

... there wouldn't be any requirements before you can adopt a child. And since I've never heard anyone say we should just hand over orphans to anyone who asks for one,...

I forgot I wanted to say something about this statement. That's only a half truth. Right now I can give my kids away to anyone who wants them. I won't, but I could. And for just a nominal fee for changing legal guardians. I can accept a blatantly false name, never seeing the home they would go to, no questions at all about anything. now, your multitude of hoops to jump through, the insanely expensive processes, those come when you add brokers, intermediaries if you will, such as the government or adoption agencies. Those agencies can add whatever sorts of requirements they see fit.

[TigerHunter]

Having a child clearly isn't a right, or there wouldn't be any requirements before you can adopt a child.

Sure as hell, reproduction is a basic right. 'My body, my choice', sound familiar? Adoption is getting an existing child from someone else, not the same thing.

Why does it matter that someone else created the child? Either way, you're taking responsibility for a human life in its formative years. What difference does the child's biological source make that people who are horribly unqualified to be parents are allowed to raise children as long as the sperm and egg that went into the child are theirs?

Also, I agree with "my body, my choice". I already admitted that enforcing such a system would be unethical, I am simply arguing that the system itself would be ideal.

But they do violate a couple basic rights.

How so? Having a child clearly isn't a right, or there wouldn't be any requirements before you can adopt a child. And since I've never heard anyone say we should just hand over orphans to anyone who asks for one, I don't see why people are so opposed to not allowing anyone with working biological equipment who can get laid to create a child.

I saw this was already answered, but since you asked me directly, I'll need to define what you're asking before I can coherently answer.

It looks like we're simultaneously talking about two things. For the sake of argument and clarity, I'll call them pre-birth and child. Pre-birth in this case would be dealing any rights to conceive. Does a woman have the right to accept sperm to fertilize an egg? And child would be once the baby is born. Does the woman have the right nine months later to try (try) and raise the child in a manner she sees fit?

I would argue that the child's right to be raised by competent parents supersedes the parents' right to create or raise a child. However, I have already agreed that forcing the parents to take any steps to prevent the conception or birth of the child would be unethical.

... there wouldn't be any requirements before you can adopt a child. And since I've never heard anyone say we should just hand over orphans to anyone who asks for one,...

I forgot I wanted to say something about this statement. That's only a half truth. Right now I can give my kids away to anyone who wants them. I won't, but I could. And for just a nominal fee for changing legal guardians. I can accept a blatantly false name, never seeing the home they would go to, no questions at all about anything. now, your multitude of hoops to jump through, the insanely expensive processes, those come when you add brokers, intermediaries if you will, such as the government or adoption agencies. Those agencies can add whatever sorts of requirements they see fit.

But by imposing those requirements, the government has already established that only certain people are qualified to be parents. So why do we forgo those requirements for the child's biological parents, or for whoever the biological parents choose?


Allow me to submit an extreme example: pedophiles. Let's say that a man... no, a couple both have several arrests for child molestation, both girls and boys. Should we allow them to raise a child they conceived and birthed themselves, knowing full well that the child is almost certain to be molested? If you said no, then you agree with the premise that only certain people should be allowed to raise children, everything else is squabbling over where we draw the line.

[rookie]

First, the government set those requirements for adopting kids in the government system. It's the nature of bureaucracy. So let me ask you this to prove my point. Why is there no level of licensing or anything like that for me to put in our will that if something were to happen to me and my wife for who would raise our kids. That was extremely awkwardly worded. I hope you got what I was trying to say.

As to your extreme example, well, I saw this with my own eyes. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but bear with me. When we were in the hospital having our second, in the room next to us was a woman high on something. Social Services was right there ready to take the baby. Yes, the woman was high on something in the delivery room. And no, it wasn't the drugs the hospital gives. It already happens, your example there. Anyways, for your child molestation example, I'll say they can have the kid until they screw it up.

And what makes a parent competent? Who decides? And how? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Just showing you the trap.

[Yla]

If you said no, then you agree with the premise that only certain people should be allowed to raise children, everything else is squabbling over where we draw the line.

It's a bit more than where to draw the line. Currently there is such a thing called CPS. All debates to their effectiveness aside, if the agency ends up officially considering someone as unfit for parenting, the kids are taken away and given to foster care.

The difference between CPS and a Parenting License is the null hypothesis. Currently we consider everyone a fit parent unless proven otherwise. A licensing system would consider everyone an unfit parent unless proven otherwise.

[TenfoldMaquette]

You realize that it hasn't gone through clinical trials yet, right?

Mhm. I mentioned it when I posted the link. But it's certainly promising.

If you're only doing this to males, that is just sexist. It won't stop stupid women from getting pregnant. Plus, this procedure would be expensive on a large scale.

And I'm not sure how "stupid women" could still get pregnant when every male is sterile.

Because not every male is sterile. There are those men who pass the test.

What I was saying had very little to do with the topic of the OP, which was registering people to have kids.

I was explaining how a mandated but temporary form of contraception would make "licensing" people for parenthood irrelevant as, in that scenario, no one would have accidental kids. Why make people register to be a parent when they can just un-sterilize themselves whenever they're ready to breed? Problem = solved.

[rookie]

Oh, snap, Tiger. It took me far too long to see what you did. But I caught it, and now I have to call you on it. The whole licensing thing is on the premise that raising children is a right or privilege that has to be earned. I have to prove that I am somehow competent enough to be entrusted with my child to raise. And you with your extreme example snuck in the other way, that they were already proven to be harmful. Hat's off to you for that bit of trickery.