Should you have to earn a license to become a parent?

1. 59

   andrew savageposted 11 years ago

   What would be the pros and cons of enacting parent licensing programs throughout the world? Would the quality of living improve or worsen? What would be the criteria to use in judging who can and who cannot become a parent? What is the current criteria used in social service programs for assessing who is and who is not a safe parent? How many years or generations would it take to establish such a licensing program as acceptable? Would this split the population into camps of breeders and thinkers? What methods could be used to intelligently perpetuate natural selection? Would people be better off marrying and bearing children with others who more or less genetically similar? What are the dangers of bearing children with a partner genetically similar to you? Should genetic differentiation have a threshold requirement to ensure that marriages do not occur among those who are too genetically similar? How would you define such a world based upon such an ideal and practice? For example, would it be consider futurist? Socialist? Technocratic?
   
   How can such a practice become law without hindering other civil and political liberties of the masses?
   Did civilizations like the Spartans and others try such a practice? Where and how did they fail and fall short? How can we pick up where they left off without repeating the same mistakes?
   
   How do you feel about having a minimum IQ requirement for parenting?
   In the long run which is better a guided intelligent breeding program as the law or laissez-faire breeding?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How do you enforce it?  Take away the kids from unlicensed parents?  Jail them if they refuse to get a license?
      
      Who sets the standards?  Nancy Pelosi?  Billy Graham?  The pope?  The skinheads of northern Idaho?
      
      The nazi's started such a program, measuring kids head sizes and so on to determine who was fit to be a good nazi - is that what you want?
      
      And "intelligent" breeding program - like the Chinese who limited births?  Are those the results you want - "unneeded" children left in the crying fields to die?  Followed by a massive immigration influx as it was discovered they weren't "unneeded" after all?
      
      How would I define such a world?  Insane, evil, horrible, not worth living in all come to mind.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Indeed.
         Totally agree with you wilderness.

         replyreport
   2. 75

      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Pure evil!

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Kevin Peterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I loved the way you thought of changing people into better parents. But I don't think that it's a practical idea. If it can be changed into reality we can look forward for a better future.

      replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   50% of kids are still unplanned pregnancies.  So I don't see how it would work.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Only rape creates unplanned pregnancies... People know what they are doing when they decide to have sex. Sex leads to pregnancy naturally.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         Sherry Hewinsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So you think unlicensed people will stop having sex?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No, but there is always sterilization.

            replyreport
      2. 80

         HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Only if it is unprotected. Plenty of women (who have not been raped) who have protected sex get pregnant, family planning is not 100%, you know.

         replyreport
3. 93

   jansharesposted 11 years ago

   If we could focus on the original question (whew!, too much), I think it's a good idea. I have often voiced a concern about the need for mandatory parenting classes in order to give the child and the parents a better chance at success.
   
   The basics on child development, effective discipline, and behavior reinforcement could be helpful and possibly decrease the incidences of child abuse which is my number one motivator for such a mandate.
   
   I think the referral could be made at the beginning of pre-natal care appointments. How to enforce it? Well, you can't jail parents who refuse or take their children away. But I think monetary incentives would be appropriate. For example, help with infant care items (coupons), child care expenses, and college funds.

   replyreport
4. 75

   Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

   You know what is terrifying?  To think that there are individuals who feel competent enough to make decisions for others, and that they might get themselves in to such a position!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Except of course in cases where parents killed or nearly killed their previous kids, they have their future children seized at birth.  So there are reasons to do this.  These kids, of course, still suffer withdrawal from drugs, permanent disabilities etc.  I am not comfortable crossing that line, but a case could be made from intervening earlier.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         Removing a child from an unsafe environment is justified, with evidence.  But, to sterilize another against their wishes is ominous.  It has been tried, taken to the extreme, and thankfully terminated.
         
         
         
         I find the thought of things like this horrifying!
         
         GMO corn and…sterilization? Are GMO created foods biological weapons?
         
         You have not killed me yet. Time to short Monsanto? Who else does the Genetically Altered Seed?Oh thank you so much Gates and Buffett. Taking antibodies from women with a rare condition known as “immune infertility” and isolating the genes that regulated the manufacture of those antibodies, they inserted them into the corn plants, creating, in essence, a biological weapon for population control.
         
         http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/gmo-corn-and … ion/599683

         replyreport
   2. 59

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      People make decisions for the American people all the time... They are called elected officials.
      Furthermore if you look at the gene pools, too many people are not exactly practicing intelligent breeding. You are suppose to breed with someone who is as genetically dissimilar to you as possible, however such an idea clashes with racism, religion, nationalism (foreign and domestic) and other cultural barriers. There are more cases of blindness, deafness, baldness, and other genetic disorders than ever before. People have locked themselves into their homes and neighborhoods for far too long... natural selection runs its course the best, producing the best offspring, when people leave their homelands and venture out to explore other cultures. Gene pools stagnant and produce weak genes otherwise.
      
      GMOs are not the problem, people who refuse to mix outside of their gene pools is the problem. All genes naturally modify themselves through random mutation. Therefore all organisms are GMOs.
      I blame immune infertility on indirect inbreeding (breeding within one's own ethnicity).

      replyreport
5. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   There have been cases where parents have had children with mental ages under 5 sterilized.  I can't say I am fully okay with that but I understand the reasoning and it seems to be legal.
   
   I would never support sterilization against the with of the adult involved.  But I do see some shades of grey. And I think the OP was more about "permission" perhaps with penalties than draconian enforcement.
   
   Most countries have some degree of encouragement or discouragement for having children. In the US it takes more the form of not being able to get health insurance.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is people like Margaret Sanger that gives me the chills!
      
      
      
      
      
      Adolf  Hitler   "The  demand  that  defective  people  be prevented  from  propagating  equally  defective  offspring. . .  represents  the  most humane  act  of  mankind."  Mein  Kampf,  vol. 1,  ch. 10
      
      
      Margaret  Sanger - Founder  of   Planned  Parenthood  ". . .we  prefer  the  policy  of  immediate  sterilization,   of   making   sure  that  parenthood  is   ' absolutely   prohibeted '   to   the   feeble-minded."   The  Pivot  of  Civilization,   p102

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Another of her statements:
         
         
         "To  apply  a  stern  and  rigid  policy  of  sterilization  and  segregation  to  that  grade  of  population  whose  progeny  is  already  tainted. . .  to  apportion  farm  lands  and  homesteads  for  these  segregated  persons  where  they  would  be  taught  to   work   under   competent   instructors   for   the   period   of   their   entire   lives. . ."
         
         Mararet  Sanger.     "Plan  for  Peace."     Birth  Control  Review
         Volumn  XVI,  Number  4  (April  1932),  pp.  107-8.

         replyreport
      2. 59

         andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         While I disagree with what happened in the Holocaust, this quote is perhaps one of the most humane statements a politician has ever made. Prevention is the safest policy.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Note: The former reply is in response to the first quote, not the later quote.

            replyreport
         2. 52

            abt79posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Why is sterilization humane? And not allowing "dumb" people to have children? Why?

            replyreport
         3. 80

            HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            So, who defines what is a defective person? A Jew perhaps, or what about gays? People who might be genetically disposed to cancer, depression, mental illness? What? What is a defective person, or, how do you define a defective person?

            replyreport
   2. 59

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This cliche of "shades of gray" seems to be making quite some noise... What I mean by this is that it is overused.
      Reality is entirely stark- black and white- right and wrong. There is no middle fence between the north and south pole except for the ones established by man's imagination. In the end the right will fall in right's place, and wrong will fall in wrong's place, no one will fall inbetween because there is no in between.
      
      If you are born with an IQ that is far lower than the norm and dangerously so, then the state should reserve the right to sterilize such a person so that the person may engage in safe sex without having to worry about begetting offspring with the same problems.
      
      For what other purpose do we exist, other than to improve life?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         tmbridgelandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting. Why use intelligence as your marker? Why not good looks, or devotedness to religion, or wealth? For that matter, why consider low intelligence as unworthy at all? Nature seems to like dumb people, she created plenty of them. Evolution would seem to be telling us that dumb is good.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Pardon me for correcting you, but nature does not make dumb people. If you remove mankind from his artificial environment nature will separate the unfit from the fit. However I am not arguing for the removal of civilization, I am arguing for the improvement of it. There are people alive today who are only able to survive because of artificial stimuli. I believe that disease, genetic disorders, poor intelligence, etcetera can be bred out of the species.
            There is a book called Brave New World by Aldous Huxley that speaks of a somewhat similar utopia that I am proposing in which humans are bred for intelligence, good looks, ability to work, etcetera. There is no evidence that evidence favours dumb people- on the contrary evolution has been proving otherwise. We have gone from living in trees and caves to living in cities made of steel, glass, stone, and other resources extracted from the earth or made in factories.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               tmbridgelandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Interesting. I am considering whom we we might convince to set the standards for the selections. I hear George W. Bush is currently available.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  George does not believe in science, which is a lot like not believing in air. Therefore we cannot rely on George, let alone any and all politicians. The burden of trust or reliability falls on the hands of scientists. Science will prove which genes and alleles will be the most fit to be reproduced.

                  replyreport
                  1. 52

                     abt79posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Not all dumb people would be killed if removed from civilization. It would depend much on physical strength. So should weak people be sterilized?

                     replyreport
      2. 80

         HollieTposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly, when we can have blonde haired, blue eyed, tall and intelligent people.

         replyreport
6. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

   - we reap what we sow in life.

   replyreport
7. 59

   andrew savageposted 11 years ago

   No, but they could be rendered infertile.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And if it was decided by authority that you should be rendered infertile, would you eagerly succumb?
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 59

         andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         For the greater good. So long as the plan was to breed the most possibly fit. Besides that, the human population is well above the carrying capacity which is 2 billion people... currently we are at 7 billion, and exhausting non renewable resources.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Who would decide who was the most possibly fit,  a bunch of inbred elites?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               No. Science will decide.

               replyreport
               1. 52

                  abt79posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  ...Or will it. If we allow such laws, who is to say a corrupted leader could do "research" on his political enemies and say they are "dumb" and leave them sterilized.

                  replyreport
         2. 81

            tmbridgelandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Ahh, the crux. He is a Malthusian. Religious wacko. No point in continuing discussion.

            replyreport
8. 92

   Sherry Hewinsposted 11 years ago

   This would be even worse than China's one child policy. I guess it would put a bunch of people to work for the government assessing prospective parents.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You could raise taxes on unlicensed parents.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         Sherry Hewinsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So, are you backing away from your forced sterilization plan? If that plan is followed, there will be no unlicensed parents to tax.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I am on the side of which ever plan proves to be most effective in creating more intelligent ways to breed humans.

            replyreport
   2. 61

      Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What was wrong with China's one child policy?
      Nothing wrong with a bit of forward planning, government and individuals have failed to see the consequence of no population control.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      andrew savageposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Why does it have to be a government agency? It could be a private enterprise that is closely overseen and partially managed by the federal and/or state government(s). 
      
      It is completely natural for communities to plan successful patterns of breeding and child development. If such a program started one hundred years ago, many of us would not be here today, however society would probably be better off. We would be one hundred years closer to ending all wars, ending terrorism, providing enough food for everyone and having zero unemployment. Of course I could understand why someone would be against my stance...

      replyreport
9. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

   (- let us issue licenses to have sex. Marriage licensees. Oh... we already do.) Maybe it should be harder to get one of those. Child psychology classes could be required to get one. I don't mean to make it harder... I mean to help the couples become informed.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting, this would help fund colleges and universities if you required courses to be taken inorder to receive a license.

      replyreport
10. 85

    rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

    No, it wouldn't help.  Apparently there are those parents who give very little thought to the immense responsibility of bringing a child into the world.  The responsibility is then given to teachers, caregivers, grandparents, the kids themselves, the state, society.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       some would benefit, I am sure. There is a lot of ignorance out there. Maybe we should require child psychology classes in high schools!?

       replyreport
       1. 85

          rebekahELLEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not referring to your post specifically, but to the question of the thread.  Child psychology classes mean very little to a high school student who is not thinking about children, but about sex.  I work with children everyday for a profession.  I am no longer amazed at what parents don't know or don't seem to care about.  There are simply no excuses for parents who don't take the time to educate themselves about what is required to raise a child well, including basic hygiene and health practices, nutrition, social skills, time necessary to bond and nurture with your offspring. 
          
          The best advice I can give to parents is to truly listen to your child, even your tiny infant.  Listening requires thinking about what is being communicated both verbally and non-verbally.  We can't expect our children to listen if we don't listen to them and haven't taught them how.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             andrew savageposted 10 years agoin reply to this

             I was thinking that we cut two years out of grade school and have the state provide two years to a college or trade school of each citizen's choice. If such a measure were enforced most people would graduate high school by age 15 or 16 and graduate with a certificate or Associate's degree by age 17 or 18. It would be in that trade school or college that students would take parenting a course such as child psychology.
             
             Furthermore, I am not advocating the removal of an entire grade ciriculum, so much as a reduction in the amount of grades through removing redundant courses that are often taken again and again from K to 12, such as history courses. I remember taking an American history courseware in elementary, middle and high school, which was very unnecessary as I passed it everytime and it wasted the time that I could have spent studying another class for the future. If someone intelligent critically looked over and examined the details of grade school curriculum it would not be surprising as to what redundancies are removed from our schooling system.

             replyreport
11. 60

    Nicole Winterposted 11 years ago

    I'm sorry but some of you people are insane in the mother-freaking-membrane.
    
    I have to procreate outside of my race in order to be practicing intelligent breeding?
    
    There are no unplanned pregnancies except in the instances of rape?
    
    What the fruit-nuttery is all that about?
    
    Yes, sex does lead to pregnancy.  Rape can lead to pregnancy, but it is ignorant to assume or ascertain that only rapes result in unplanned pregnancies.  You do the world of responsible parents who meticulously plan their pregnancies a grave injustice.
    
    I've often supported and expounded upon the virtues of negative population growth, and in requiring such stringent licensing as the OP recommended, yes, in that way there would be a reasonable way of attaining at the very least, responsible population growth.
    
    However, it's simply *not* feasible.  Like rebekahELLE mentions, there are simply too many people who do not consider any kind of thought as to if they should have a child.  (Yes, Dan Savage, these would be UNPLANNED pregnancies.)
    
    I'm all for, as I have said *many* times, everyone waving their freak flag in the air like they just don't care, but seriously?  I don't date outside of my race.  I'm not racist.  It's just not something that I do.  To imply that I didn't do my due diligence in having my child because I didn't find a partner as genetically dissimilar to myself as possible is absolutely insulting.  What - eve - R.
    
    As long as ya'all aren't related the gene pool is more than wide enough, as far as I'm concerned.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Progress in evolution requires the most dissimilar of the most fit to procreate inorder to create positive mutations that improve populations ability of survival. I am not saying it is sinful to breed within your ethnicity, but it is a bit unwise in the long run.

       replyreport
12. 59

    andrew savageposted 11 years ago

    No, quite the contrary. Such a program would make it impossible for there to be what you are referring to as "a bunch of inbred elites," what I am proposing is a bit counter culture to the present state of affairs witnessed in UK royalty and other elite families (here and abroad). Science would make recommendations on the most possibly fit, and help plan pregnancies among the populations.

    replyreport
13. 87

    Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago

    Forget becoming a parent, you should have to earn a license to be allowed to live, to be taken by everyone once they turn 18.
    
    First qualification: IQ over 120. I qualify for this, so I'm not concerned.
    Second qualification: Being of sound mind and health. I'm already screwed.
    Third qualification: Having discernible skills and passion for said skills. Yet again, I fail.
    
    So yes, my suggestion for Life Licenses is a sound one, because I said so. And I can only say so because our society lacks common sense and neglected to remove my sorry arse from the gene pool.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       andrew savageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Strike out the second qualification because if left unchecked, the only two people left to continue living would be Buddha and Christ.
       Look at the world for what it is and it does not take long before you realize we all have unsound details. The goal is to tune society until we have a more perfect world to live, and to continue re-tuning society.

       replyreport
14. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

    Only 50% of pregnancies are even planned.  So if they refuse to do the training for a license what do you do?
    
    yeah, it's unworkable.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       andrew savageposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Really? Where did you find that stat? To my knowledge 93% of all statistics are hearsay- meaning that one person hears someone say one thing and then repeats what he heard later on. Watch out for the other seven percent though, because the truth hurts.

       replyreport