This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Debate: Having children should be regulated or licensed
We need a license to drive a car, to run a business or to become part of professional bodies. Why on earth would we leave something as difficult and demanding of thought, care and responsibility to those that may not be fit to do so?
Too often those who should not have children do have them, often leaving the child ill prepared and in many cases a burden upon society. Should there not be some psychological evaluation people should take before they are deemed capable of performing the responsibilities required of a parent?
Closing Statement from Varlan Allan
Thanks to everyone for contributing to this conversation. It was difficult to think such aspects of human life need to be considered in our current society, but we have all imparted valuable perspectives and considered the logic of such possibilities.
Ultimately, society will decide what is best for itself. But we must not deter from asking the difficult questions and what its impact could mean for the future stability of our global community.
george lockwood 20+
carolyn mcauley 10+
Jean-Charles Longuet
- defining what the required skills are for being a parent is non-trivial. Currently, what is "good" for children varies from culture to culture, changes every 5 or 10 years, and is not as well-defined as a license driving (even then, count the number of car accidents).
- defining required level to "license" parents seems difficult : a difference of a fraction of a mark will allow people to raise children or not ?
- how could you enforce such a rule ? By a body aggression like sterilization ? By fees, allowing rich people to buy their rights ? By putting the concerned children far from their biological parents ?
- breathing, living, having children is something that are currently under the scope of individual rights. If you deny the right to have children, why not go further and claim a "license to live" ?
Rather than a license, I would prefer education for parents.
Varlan Allan 10+
carolyn mcauley 10+
Lars Mews
So as long as you do not have "perfect children", you will not be able to create a test for "perfect parents". Means, one who can deal well with a silent child may end up in trouble with a wild child, or other way round. The key to parenthood is not to be perfect, but to face any imperfection.
Varlan Allan 10+
John Frum 30+
http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=1764/tocnode?id=g9781405125840_chunk_g97814051258403&authstatuscode=202
Varlan Allan 10+
Lee Wilkinson 20+
John Penn
John Frum 30+
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics
eu·gen·ics
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics
I have chosen not to have my own biological kids, because of a few genetic predispositions. Don't confuse this form of eugenics with Nazis' racistic "eugenics". "Learning" from that history is like rejecting chemistry just because alchemists did silly things.
I certainly advocate testing fetuses for Huntingtons' too, and aborting when necessary. This is proper, modern eugenics. The weird thing that you believe you have learned from history is not eugenics.
Would you call China's one-child policy Eugenics too?
Andres Aullet 10+
Whether we admit it or not, current population growth is not sustainable.
Some argue that "natural selection" by means of the "invisible" forces or market will slow down and stabilize the population. But even if this were the case, it is naive to think that this can happen without widespread suffering of innocent people
Most people don't like being told what to do. Yet we all want to tell others what to do. Riddle me that one.
The example of China highlighted the benefits and pitfalls of such regulation. Yes they solved the over population growth, but at the same time they created second class citizens and a preference for male offspring.
Part of the problem is that the human brain is not suited to relate to a group of people larger than a few hundred. And it is also not suited to relate to events that happened more than a few years/decades ago.
It is very difficult to foresee the impact that our actions of today will have in the lives of people half around the globe, and a hundred or more years into the future. So we close our eyes and pretend that we "know" what the impact will be and go on with our lives. That is always a more comfortable position than to think through real consequences.
But obviously regulations are created by government and politicians. Are they knowledgeable enough to make those decisions? How do we get rid of government's inherent conflict of interests?
great debate topic
cheers
John Frum 30+
I have no knowledge of that. Can you elaborate? I had a few Chinese friends, but they just told me that when parents have more than one child, they just have to pay additional taxes. I haven't heard about second class citizens.
Andres Aullet 10+
I was lucky to travel to China for a few months in 2000 and then a couple more times in 2001 and 2002. Mostly in the south east, to Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
Yes, the official policy was one of taxation to discourage more than one children.
But I learned over there about the difficulty non first-borns to get into schools, or a disproportionate amount of extra bureaucracy
Also, the versions heard in the media regarding female newborns being abandoned or killed due to the preference of male children was more than a rumor, many people told me they were aware of such discrimination
Did you ever heard any of this? Do you consider that some sort of second class treatment?
cheers
John Frum 30+
I hadn't heard of extra bureaucracy to get into schools. Your knowledge of this seems to be better than mine. (I've not been in touch with my Chinese friends for the last few years.)
Though I find this preference for males a bit backward, I think the problem will fix itself.
Jedrek Stepien 10+
Varlan Allan 10+
Salim Solaiman 50+
John Frum 30+
sterling brewer
John Smith 30+
John Frum 30+
Salim Solaiman 50+
@ Jhon yes Children are separate entity, but that only happens when when two person of oppsite gender make ove with an intension of having child......before that the entity of child doesn't exist.
steff pittard
John Frum 30+
For example:
1. Does a child have a right to have non-pedophile parents?
2. Does a child have a right to have parents who are not drug addicts or alcoholics?
3. Does a child have a right to have parents that are not bat-shit crazy?
I like the idea having a much smaller population. Some countries are far too crowded -- like many Asian countries where poverty is prevalent, and forests are becoming a thing of the past.
sterling brewer
i have the same question now as lejan asked below.
"So who then defines those psychological evaluations? Who is allowed to decide for others if they are allowed to reproduce or not? What about mentally ill people, or disabled people? Are they not allowed to have children according to norm? What is norm? What makes a good parent? IQ, EQ, both? What is the equivalent of a 'rocket scientist' in this field of studies?"
i can see all kinds of things going wrong here. this is a very touchy subject, i realise now.
John Smith 30+
1. Does a child have a right to have non-pedophile parents?
2. Does a child have a right to have parents who are not drug addicts or alcoholics?
3. Does a child have a right to have parents that are not bat-shit crazy?"
In those cases you take the child away from the custody of the parents, though usually one of the two is still fit to be a parent and can get custody.
Look at it this way, for every instance of one of your 3 cases there are thousands of "normal" parents, making them all take a parenting test would cost a lot of resources, resources that could be spend more efficiently helping a lot more people. This is just besides the obvious question, already raised here, of who gets to decide what is "normal".
John Frum 30+
Lejan's comment does not address mine. I'm not worried about deciding who gets to have kids. I'd just be happy with addressing who DOESN'T get to have kids. Coming to addressing my own questions, in each case, the answer is forcible sterilization.
1. The police already have a list of pedophiles.
2 & 3.If a person ever has their children taken away by child protective services.
2 & 3. If a person has a police record of any such behaviour.
'Look at it this way, for every instance of one of your 3 cases there are thousands of "normal" parents, making them all take a parenting test would cost a lot of resources, resources that could be spend more efficiently helping a lot more people. This is just besides the obvious question, already raised here, of who gets to decide what is "normal".'
Like I said, I'm not worried about people who are more or less "normal". I am concerned about those who are clearly abnormal. "would cost a lot of resources": Not true - the police and the courts already have the list.
"though usually one of the two is still fit to be a parent and can get custody. "
Fine. Sterilize the other one.
Lejan . 30+
If my comment did not address yours, please elaborate on the 'logic' of your statement quoted above, as I do not understand it.
'... I'm not worried about people who are more or less "normal". I am concerned about those who are clearly abnormal. ...'
This is the same 'logic' I can't follow. How do you distinguish the 'abnormal' or even the 'clearly abnormal' without knowing what 'normal' is? Don't you see this contradiction just by looking at the word 'ab-normal' itself?
John Frum 30+
I already did. Refer to the three items in my comment. Smith quoted it too.
Do you have a model, i.e. a list of criteria, for a perfectly healthy person (medically)? I do not. Yet, I can say when a person is clearly unhealthy. For example, if he seems to be having fits. The three items I mentioned in my list are the equivalent of having fits. What's so hard to follow about this?
Lejan . 30+
Those criteria are in use in medicine every day! If we would never have measured a wide spectrum of vital signals and parameters, and methodically filtered its 'norm' in relation to gender, age and other preconditions, how could any physician ever know that ones blood-pressure was to be treated?
'Yet, I can say when a person is clearly unhealthy.'
No you can't! You would measure the blood-pressure and do what? Without comparison? Nothing but guesswork based on and biased by experience and personal preferences.
And this was within a field where it was even easy to determine a 'norm' just by simple statistics of pressure-measurements.
So now back to parenting. How many kisses a good parent gives to his child compared to a bad one? Does this kiss have to be 'honest' or does those 'mechanical' ones count as well? This is no measurement of pressure anymore, which therefore stays indeterminable!
What would you do, if pedophilia was more part of our 'human nature' than we expect it to be? Would you accept such facts or would you rather stick to your 'believes' to spot those 'clearly unhealthy' parents? I don't know about your laws at the South Pole, but in my country pedophilia counts as child abuse and consequently protects affected children against it, also within families, and puts the committer in custody and therapy.
'The three items I mentioned in my list are the equivalent of having fits. What's so hard to follow about this?'
This list describes nothing but criminals, for which legal regulations are already in place. By this it does not match the 'general' and 'preventive' character of the original question and therefore does not explain 'your logic' on it.
PS. If you could use the 'Reply' function on my comments to respond to me, it triggers a message and helps me to follow the conversation. Thank you.
Lejan . 30+
Maybe this point did not become clear enough about blood-pressure as comparison for 'norm'. Even though you are not a doctor and you would be able to measure blood-pressure the only positive identification without having 'norm' values for comparison you could do, is to measure 'zero' pressure, which would indicate the extreme, that the patient was dead. If your measurement was 125/85 you would not know what to do with it and to know if this was good or bad.
'How many times should have a child have been raped before you consider the parent "bad" and call protective services?'
In worst case, one time, if no other offence would have indicated violent behaviour which would have justified legal actions ti take place. This may sound horrible to you, but we can not sentence anyone without valid proof of committed crime.
Rape is a crime and if someone gets convicted for it, he has to face the legal consequences. This is how it is today and this is the way it should be. But this was not the intention of this question.
The question was 'Should there not be some psychological evaluation people should take before ...'. People, ordinary once, not convicted sexual criminals! No extremes for a driving license for only 'Schumachers'!
My question of who '... the equivalent of a 'rocket scientist' in this field of studies?' would be was not related to parents, it was related to people who would have to define what a 'good parent' had to look like. To me this definition stays indefinable and no one is allowed to decide who is allowed to reproduce and who isn't. This would be an unethical act and against the dignity of man.
'... your other criteria, none of them guarantee that the child will suffer greatly when born.'
If poverty and war is no condition to 'suffer greatly' when born, you may get some 'hands on' eperience to find out, that you are mistaken here!
On adoption hurdles I agree with U
Lejan . 30+
Lejan . 30+
You could not claim those rights and their enforcement for someone (children) who do not exist yet, by violating the rights of those who do exist. And as reproduction is intrinsic in life, all living beings have a natural right to act accordingly if they wish to.
And where do you end your list of good will?
Does a child have a right to have all limbs?
Does a child have a right to be born into a democracy?
Does a child have a right to have parents which aren't poor?
Does a child have a right to have a minimum in life expectancy?
Does a child have a right to have at least its own children's room?
Does a child have a right to have a minimum of useful talents and IQ?
Does a child have a right to have peace at its place of birth instead of war?
Does a child have a right to have its parents preselected?
None of those rights are valid UNTILL birth and only a few of them could become valid thereafter.
John Frum 30+
I'm not a doctor, but I can assure you I won't get False Positives when identifying that there is something wrong. Sure, I'll get plenty of False Negatives if I have to study medical reports... like MRI scans, etc. I don't have special abilities either. In fact, most lay people will get few False Positives too, and that's how they know when to contact emergency services.
"How many kisses a good parent gives to his child compared to a bad one?"
I don't care. Do you think it matters? How many times should have a child have been raped before you consider the parent "bad" and call protective services? Varlan Allan was asking "We need a license to drive a car", and you're talking about "rocket scientist". These are on completely opposite ends of spectrums. I have a driving license though I don't drive like one of the Schumachers. Varlan Allan was talking about some very basic criteria. How much more basic than criminal records can these criteria be? This is what my three items were.
"Does a child have a right to have its parents preselected?" That's illogical. A child is a direct outcome of its parents' genes. Unless you're talking about adoption, in which case, the parents are already preselected. One has to jump through many hoops to assure the agencies that we are going to be competent parents, before they give us a child.
With regard to all your other criteria, none of them guarantee that the child will suffer greatly when born. So, what's the point in asking them?
John Frum 30+
"In worst case, one time, if no other offence would have indicated violent behaviour which would have justified legal actions ti take place."
No, this sounds perfect to me.
"People, ordinary once, not convicted sexual criminals! ... it was related to people who would have to define what a 'good parent' had to look like."
Can we make a case for taking away the rights to have kids? There is a specific kind of "poverty" that I would add to that list. If, in a welfare country, a couple is on welfare support, they couple must be sterilized for the duration that they are on support. The same goes for people who are in state-funded drug rehab facilities. They must be on sterilization until they have been clean for at least a year or so.
The adoption agencies already have a list of criteria that must be met, in order to give away a child. I find most of the criteria to be very sensible. The same set of criteria _could_ be used to decide who gets to give birth to kids too. But this is a different line of approach than what I have been arguing for all this time.
John Frum 30+
David Hamilton 50+
Gail . 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Varlan Allan 10+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jason Stotz
However, I think a big issue on this planet is our runaway population. While everyone should be allowed to bare children, there's no need for a family to have 10 of them. Everyone could be freely allowed 2 children. If you wanted to have more, you would pay for it. I don't really see this happening given all the moral baggage, the government's involvement, and the question of how to deal with law-breakers, but it does seem like a possible way to try to slow the population increase a bit.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
edward long 100+
John Smith 30+
It's easy to set objective standards for those things, but not for the way you should raise your children.
Varlan Allan 10+
No Abuse
Safe Environment
Just to name a few
John Smith 30+
Define "safe environment"
Lejan . 30+
With all due respect, but if I look at the history of my nation, I am getting ideas where this sort of thinking may lead to again.
Parenthood is more than just maschinery, economics or profession. Much more! And it can not be reduced into multiple choice 'If... then' phrases.
The only aspect I would agree to, and which I am actually missing in our current school system, is to offer a broad knowledge about aspects of upbringing, based on Social, Neural and Behavioural Sciences. To offer, not to dictate, because there is a crucial difference to it!
Varlan Allan 10+
Lejan . 30+
Child maltreatment should stay monitored as it is today, within kindergarden, schools, neighbourhood, families, specialized contact points and counselling centers. A healthy society can manage this without any additional observation and to avoid 1984 and worse to appear today or any time in the future.