ForumsWEPRShould there be a license for parenting?

36 8157
CONSTANTINOchar
offline
CONSTANTINOchar
79 posts
Nomad

Every year, there are more and more cases of child abuse done by their own parents. Here and there, children are being brought up badly thus having an endless breed of parasites of the world. I believe that having a license to become a parent is necessary as it is with driving, carrying fire arms etc.

  • 36 Replies
thechosenuno
offline
thechosenuno
134 posts
Nomad

no because babies would accidentally be born and it would be just a lot of haste and an a waste of money

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Now as immoral as that may seem to some of you, the likelihood of this ultimately being of a benefit to the species, especially as applied to humans, is extremely high.


I'd actually like to have a discussion on how to project whether this would result in a net benefit or loss to humanity as a whole, actually. I'm just a little nervous that eugenics, in principle, reduces genetic variability which, crudely put, means that we'll all end up inbred lol.
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

Every person has a right to reproduce.
The state has to encourage responsible reproductive behavior, but they should not decide who is fit and whose not to have a kid.

Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Eugenics would help the Human Race to an extent but probably shouldn't be put in place for more than two generations - the loss of variety in the gene pool is then minimal enough to not matter much and the human race loses some of its worse features.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Eugenics would help the Human Race to an extent but probably shouldn't be put in place for more than two generations


Technically speaking many places already offer a soft form of "eugenics": the offer to terminate a pregnancy if it turns out the fetus has been affected by either a non-viable or severely disabling mutation.

But just how hard should it get?
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

And there's another big question. At what point does it start infringing on Human Rights?

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

I'm just a little nervous that eugenics, in principle, reduces genetic variability which, crudely put, means that we'll all end up inbred


Only if applied in the narrowest sense. Much of that would depend on the stipulations placed on the governing principles if we apply eugenics. There are nearly 6.7 billion people on the planet at the moment and even if we only allow half to mate we still end up with over 1.5 billion mating pairs, resulting in 3-4 billion offspring in the first generation.

Since these mated pairs will produce the offspring most likely to have desirable traits, the amount not allowed to reproduce would diminish with each successive generation.

The main idea for implementing eugenics would be to weed out the traits that make us susceptible to certain diseases and deformities, and those who are likely to create offspring with hindered mental capacity.

Eugenics would help the Human Race to an extent but probably shouldn't be put in place for more than two generations - the loss of variety in the gene pool is then minimal enough to not matter much and the human race loses some of its worse features.


This is possible, but if we apply it properly we may find that after 10-20 generations it would no longer even be needed as by then the world population would not only be more manageable, but that most of the least desirable traits would have been eliminated from the human genome.
Holden012
offline
Holden012
1,989 posts
Nomad

No , They should just take away the kids after the parents screw up more than once.

Plus it just adds another card to put in your Wallet/Pursue along with your Credit Cards , Drivers License and so on.


Everyone should have a chance to be a parent but if they can't be a good parent , Well they can say goodbye to their kids.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

"Founding" a family would include the right to have children, thus possibly making said license a crime against humanity by violating Article 16, part 1.


While this is true given our current UN agreements, what we must take into account when discussing such things is whether or not violating the current rights of the individual will have a positive affect on society as a whole. This is one of the arguments for eugenics and controlled procreation. When we reach a point where the unchecked reproduction of our species has a negative impact on us as a whole then there may come a time when violating such individual rights may be for the good of our species as a whole.
salt08
offline
salt08
14 posts
Nomad

I don't think you can make ppl get a license to be a parent simply due to the fact that a lot of ppl would start having kids and the women wouldn't have them in the hospitals. Cause the hospitals would be required to see the parenting license and then call the authorities if the parents didn't have a license. This creates a very high health risk for those women and their children.

runswithwands
offline
runswithwands
103 posts
Nomad

Wouldn't a license to parent go hand-in-hand, in a way, with eugenics?

If we're already controlling whether or not someone should be allowed to parent, we're effectively also controlling the genetic population that results from it. There is more than just bad genes as far as mental and physical problems, it can potentially remove bad behaviours or negative personality traits if done carefully enough.

Then, of course, that leads to the issue of preventing or holding back on someone's self-identity: picking out and removing said traits that someone else said was not good to have. People, even if for only a couple generations, could easily rebel and it could turn into a war. (Right, worst case scenario, I suppose.)

[quote="MRWalker82"]When we reach a point where the unchecked reproduction of our species has a negative impact on us as a whole then there may come a time when violating such individual rights may be for the good of our species as a whole.[/quote]
This I agree with, and your post previous to that.

There are so many people in this world, that even eugenics may not be able to get rid of susceptibilities to diseases, autoimmune conditions, etc, and perhaps no amount of licensing could stop it either. However, mankind has reached such a critical point (as has the earth) that desperate times call for desperate measures. This, of course, potentially leading to that inevitable violation of human rights. The next one hundred years will be man's trip backwards to the Dark Ages.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Eugenics would help the Human Race to an extent but probably shouldn't be put in place for more than two generations - the loss of variety in the gene pool is then minimal enough to not matter much and the human race loses some of its worse features.


If we are to use eugenics we should firs find a way to work out the flaws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Criticism


I could see perhaps requiring new parents to take a parenting course to learn the basics, rather then license it be more like a certificate. This wouldn't stop the parents from being able to raise the child the way they desire it would just show they were shown some proper methods in basic care. There could be perhaps a yearly fine or as a reward some sort of tax deduction or something to that effect for taking or not taking the course.
Taking the course should be either free of charge or at very low cost in order to further encourage people to use the service.
This wouldn't interfere with a person right to raise a family at all if the consequences were not the removal of the child bu were inconvenienced by other means.
Things like social serviced could be sent to closer watch on the families who haven't taken the course, not only to ensure the child is doing okay but also to further motivate people to take the course.

on the point of over populations I think the Chinese actually have a decent basic concept of limiting family size. Though I think the implementation of only allowing one or two children is poorly worked out. Perhaps instead allow one child of each gender. For instance a couple had three boys, they could continue having children until they had at least one girl. this way you don't run into some of the horror stories of children being disposed of just because they were the wrong gender.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,061 posts
Jester

This is aimed at the OP, just to be clear.


I would say yet, but parenting isn't something you can teach. It's something that the parents themselves are learning as they go. In addition to that, different kids, need to be treated in a different way; i.e. some kids will listen to instructions, others need to learn a lesson before they will. Although, I'm am strongly all children should be checked up on every year or so, in case there is something wrong.

wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

Eugenics would help the Human Race to an extent but probably shouldn't be put in place for more than two generations - the loss of variety in the gene pool is then minimal enough to not matter much and the human race loses some of its worse features.

And there's another big question. At what point does it start infringing on Human Rights?

"Founding" a family would include the right to have children, thus possibly making said license a crime against humanity by violating Article 16, part 1. Granted, pleanty of nations ignore this Declaration to


When I think of the definition of eugenics the first thing that comes to mind is "controlled breeding", by breeding out undesirable traits. The second thing is the way royalty controlled their "blood lines", to insure purity. The third is the horrors of the holocaust and the "round up" of all of the undesirables, Hitler is the reason why eugenics is still very controversial even today. The temptation for a corrupt government to breed or weed out the undesirables of society is way too easy for tyranny to once again raise its hideous head
Yes, the law should stand that this is still America and we are free to have as many or adopt as many children as we can afford to raise. And it's the "afford" part of the above sentence that I would like to explore.
* I will make a few[* exceptions] while giving counter points on others comments below.


The main idea for implementing eugenics would be to weed out the traits that make us susceptible to certain diseases and deformities, and those who are likely to create offspring with hindered mental capacity.


Here in lies a couple of hypotheticals I would like to share:
#1 Who determines the "weeding" out and which traits would be included? If patients and their doctors, without the governments involvement then I agree.
#2 Where do we, as a free society, draw the line in the moral sand? Are all 16 year old females to be genetically perfected? To be fair, should every child, regardless of gender to be genetially perfected so reproduction will produce perfect babies? I'm only speaking ethics so please don't "read" anything else into this simple question.
#3 Who will pay for all of this perfection? Personally, I'm taxed to the max already and I own one car, one truck and two boats with my husband with no liens. We're still paying a mortgage and making a car payment,(for the next 2 yrs). Plus, my son will be starting tech school or college, will need his own car, etc.........
#4 Will only the very wealthy be able to afford this perfection or,
#5 Will this become apart of a government controlled and mandated policy where everyone will be herded, like cattle, to government approved physicians and clinics, covered under the government health insurance and monitored by the SS, I mean Social Services. [sarcasm intended]


Everyone should have a chance to be a parent but if they can't be a good parent , Well they can say goodbye to their kids.


This law is mandatory, as I know it and with all of the documentation that has to be proven I think it has saved the futures of many children. Yes, its not a perfect system but these are issues that "we the people" can bring up to our representatives and have policy changed and tweeked.
This is much more moral, humane and representative of a free society than eugenics.


I don't think you can make ppl get a license to be a parent simply due to the fact that a lot of ppl would start having kids and the women wouldn't have them in the hospitals. Cause the hospitals would be required to see the parenting license and then call the authorities if the parents didn't have a license. This creates a very high health risk for those women and their children.


I agree much like illegal abortions where women will go to private "chop shops" or even worse the back ally and the rusty coat hanger and give themselves an abortion.
ER's are already nightmarishly overcrowded. Can you imagine the mass confusioin of having to wait 4-8 more hours just so every pregnant woman could be &quotrocessed". I won't even go into the immigration delimma of Mexican women sneaking across the border just so her baby will be born in a safe and clean environment.


If we're already controlling whether or not someone should be allowed to parent, we're effectively also controlling the genetic population that results from it. There is more than just bad genes as far as mental and physical problems, it can potentially remove bad behaviours or negative personality traits if done carefully enough.


Perhaps, but like I've said above the potential for ethnic cleansing is too great if this becomes mandatory and controlled by the government. Personally I think it would be great to know that my future granchild would never have the threat of cancer or MS or Downs Syndrome, etc. Let's just please leave the government out of our bedrooms and examination rooms



I think the Chinese actually have a decent basic concept of limiting family size. Though I think the implementation of only allowing one or two children is poorly worked out. Perhaps instead allow one child of each gender. For instance a couple had three boys, they could continue having children until they had at least one girl. this way you don't run into some of the horror stories of children being disposed of just because they were the wrong gender.


Here again are we allowing the government to dictate how many, and of which gender of children couples are approved for?
Is this the US of the future?

Do we, as a free society want to adopt this as our population control policy?
Population Policy
With a population officially just over 1.3 billion and an estimated growth rate of about 0.6%, China is very concerned about its population growth and has attempted with mixed results to implement a strict birth limitation policy. China's 2002 Population and Family Planning Law and policy permit one child per family, with allowance for a second child under certain circumstances, especially in rural areas, and with guidelines looser for ethnic minorities with small populations. Enforcement varies, and relies largely on "social compensation fees" to discourage extra births. Official government policy opposes forced abortion or sterilization, but in some localities there are instances of forced abortion. The government's goal is to stabilize the population in the first half of the 21st century, and current projections are that the population will peak at around 1.6 billion by 2050.


I truly believe we can use our current policies and continue to improve them as science and the American people advance with higher education standards in the public school system. Knowledge is the key to unlocking closed mindedness and eliminating ignorance. I know there have been a few super-intelligent psychopaths but I think the OP was concentrating on the average intelligent couple that take their anger out on their child/children. With the proper education and more community awareness where neighborhoods are holding each other more accountable for the actions of these parents, gangs, drug traffic, etc. I would think there would be less opportunity for these acts of violence to occur.
When we as a society turn blind eyes and deaf ears to what our neighbors are ranting about then we become a part of the problem, not the solution.


Things like social serviced could be sent to closer watch on the families who haven't taken the course, not only to ensure the child is doing okay but also to further motivate people to take the course.



Do you know what I think of when I hear the term social services? Hitler's SS. I think of Waco.
I've been hearing horror stories from some of my own family members and friends who have had to fill out special forms and have been repeatedly interviewed,(interrogated) by Social Services just so they can prove they are fit parents.

On a personal level, I have had to use the program when I was pregnant because I didn't have insurance. The treatment I recieved was subpar at best and many times I was the last person still in the waiting room to be &quotrocessed" There is very little compassion to that institute and just one more reason why I don't want the government telling me when to have a child, how many I can have, where they will be educated, etc.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

#1 Who determines the "weeding" out and which traits would be included? If patients and their doctors, without the governments involvement then I agree.


I would propose that a panel of geneticists and evolutionary biologists would be created to determine the criteria for the program, and that it would be implemented by medical staff with the backing of a government mandate put forth by the panel of scientists and answerable to them, not the pandering of bureaucrats.

#2 Where do we, as a free society, draw the line in the moral sand? Are all 16 year old females to be genetically perfected? To be fair, should every child, regardless of gender to be genetially perfected so reproduction will produce perfect babies? I'm only speaking ethics so please don't "read" anything else into this simple question.


I believe that morally speaking the greater benefit of our species is more important that individual civil rights. However great care would need to be taken to ensure that this is not manipulated for government or religious aims. This should be from, and remain, a purely scientific issue.

#3 Who will pay for all of this perfection? Personally, I'm taxed to the max already


The testing required to identify these traits in the genome are actually reasonably priced, and a very small tax, as well as some shifting of current budget, could make it available without up front cost to the couples desiring children.

As for government control, I don't think the government should be in control of such a process, but we would definitely need the support of some legal precedence in order to enforce and monitor such actions, although I firmly agree that it should be without the government being in control at any time. They would be left to police the necessary monitoring and enforcement, but the regulations and stipulations should be purely scientific in nature. Otherwise the opportunities for government enforced 'cleansing' would be a very real threat.
Showing 16-30 of 36