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.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
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+