Should Having Kids Be Licensed?
By Louc74
@Louc74 (620)
September 4, 2009 8:48pm CST
We're all horrified when we hear about cases of child abuse and neglect, and yet people who have children removed from their care are allowed to go on and have more and more little ones.
I believe that having children is a priviledge, not a right, and that we should have to show that we're capable of providing a nurturing, loving environment to a child before being allowed to have them. No decent, caring person would have to be scared of licensing, surely, and this kind of vetting procedure would certainly ensure that fewer children were subjected to the kinds of abuses we hear of all the time.
I'd love to know what solutions others can come up with, if they agree with some kind of licensing, or perhaps testing of parenting skills, with compulsory parenting classes for those who are found to be lacking in these skills.
What do you think?
8 responses
@jross19871 (239)
• United States
6 Sep 09
Having kids should be licensed. There should be an approval process. Too many people are having kids and are unable to properly take care of their children. I am so sick of ghetto trash popping out many kids that become ghetto trash and then those people have more kids and the cycle continues.
@Louc74 (620)
•
6 Sep 09
Hi, Jross. It is a vicious cycle, and yeah, some people should never be left with a child for 5 minutes, let alone have total care of them, but what do you think of some of the previous posts detailing the problems with licensing?
It probably would be nearly impossible to implement, so maybe changing peoples sense of responsibility would be the best way to go, as well as changing the way our systems work?
Thanks for your comment! :)
@deborahkat (519)
• Brazil
6 Sep 09
I really don´t know if this is right or wrong. But I also get in depair with things like these. here in my country (Brazil, third world country) we see many stories of child abuse and the poor the family more children they have. Once I saw on tv a 3 year old baby girl working to help her family. Tell me how is that possible? If religion had a big role on contraception and so on where are the churches to help when a poor, miserable family has lots of children and abuse them to make money? I hate seeing kids on the street asking for money and hate even more to see mothers with babies on their arms using them to see if they can touch our emotion for us to give them money. Something has to be done about that. I wish I knew what would be the answer.
@Louc74 (620)
•
6 Sep 09
Hi Deborahkat, thanks for the comment! I think all decent people are upset and angry when they see abuse, and I agree that religious fanatics should take a look at what happens when impoverished families don't have access to contraception; it causes hardship and misery.
That's so sad to hear of children as young as that punishing their little bodies by working, but I've seen that it happens a lot in countries which are not so well developed yet, although abuse happens all over the world.
I suppose we just should ensure we try to do the right thing when we can. :)
@coolcoder (2018)
• United States
5 Sep 09
In no way do I think that people should be given licenses to have children. It's ridiculous--if a couple is married and truly love one another, God will give them the graces necessary to be loving, caring parents. To even think that licenses to parent should be given is horrifying; the Nazis had something similar going on where only chosen people were allowed to have kids. Those who were found to be "incompetent" were sterilized. Do we really want a repeat of that? Think about it, please.
@Louc74 (620)
•
5 Sep 09
But God doesn't give people who are parents the graces necessary to be loving, caring parents. One woman who was recently found guilty of imprisoning two little girls for several years, and using them as slaves, was devoutly religious, and the man who kidnapped Jaycee Lee Dugard and fathered two children with her was devoutly religious. It's a social issue, surely, not a religious one? And I'm certainly not suggesting a closed off, elite section of society should be the only people allowed to have children. But I do not, either, think it is a "right".
Is it really so bad to suggest that a person has to prove that they aren't psychotic, narcissistic, or a danger in any other way, before they are allowed to keep and care for a child?
Think about it the next time you see a tiny little coffin being carried out to a waiting hearse on the news, as the reporter tells you about the 7 years of torture the little victim has endured.
@vandana7 (98684)
• India
5 Sep 09
Exactly. I think government has no business to get inside the personal arena. There should be no support of any sorts to encourage people to bring young ones into the world. If they have love to spare, let them adopt. Make the adoption laws easier. Ensure there are no orphanages as orphanages are unnatural environment for children. First stipulation should be financial. To get a permission to have a child, the parents must buy a house in the name of the child. Thereafter, if the second child is desired, then the parents should be asked to show both financial, and educational support. Harworking people donate to government for a cause, and it goes to feed people who are being lazy? Something is wrong with the system.
@Louc74 (620)
•
5 Sep 09
I agree that adoption laws are crazy. They cut you off in your thirties, because you're considered too old, and yet there are all these motherless children who could have a loving home.
I have to say though, that I don't think finances should be quite that much of an issue. Peoples incomes fluctuate throughout their life, and just because someone's poor they can be the most loving, caring parents, so if that was a huge part of the issue, only the rich would be able to have children, and I totally disagree with that.
There is something very wrong with our system. I recently saw a documentary on young mothers in Britain, and the girls were actually saying that the best way for them to get a council house was to get pregnant. This shouldn't be the case. Maybe a whole system overhaul is what society needs.
Thanks for the comment. :)
@marctiu (829)
• Philippines
6 Sep 09
I strongly agree with you my friend. Nowadays, many children have been neglected by their parents. Some are even told to work and find foods. I can't imagine parents having no sense of guilt to their child. I can't believe that it was very easy for them to make a child, but it is hard for them to care what they have made. It is a very sad story.
I know that this is a new millennium. I believe that there has been so many change in our society. I wish that hopefully the care of a parent will grow more and powerful to empower the well being of a child. I know that a child's manner and conduct originates from parents.
About the license there is no need of putting one if all the parents are responsible to their child. I believe that there will come a time that these people will be oriented about this and they will truly care for their own beings.
@Louc74 (620)
•
6 Sep 09
I agree; the structure, or rather breakdown of society's values have enabled people to get away with this kind of abuse under our noses, something needs to change. maybe if we all took a little bit more responsibility, and take action if we see something wrong, we can start to change things.
Thanks for your comment! :)
@20021114476 (691)
• Philippines
5 Sep 09
This is one brave proposition. In theory, it looks good but to test it, there are things which might go wrong. I cannot support this one for many reasons.
1.) It violates nature for restraining people to proliferate.
2.) We cannot stop people from making love and if we rely on contraception which again will lead us back to first, we will also have the problem of convincing the church and many conservative/moralist out there.
3.) It will add a headache to those who are sick of red tape.
4.) I will not guarantee the goal we have in mind.
5.) The answer lies elsewhere: ask our doctors (it could be physical/psychiatric/psychological); talk to our loved ones (parents, partner/spouse, friends and children); get involve in our community especially the church.
Anyway, I don't disagree with parenting classes less the 'compulsory' part. Instead, try a good campaign which will encourage parents or even the whole family to join this drive.
@Louc74 (620)
•
5 Sep 09
Yup, it's my first post, and I know it's controversial, and I'm still thinking about it all to be honest.
Brilliant points! I do, honestly, hate the thought of tying people down in any way, and limiting them, it's just scary to think that what we have in place isn't working, but we keep banging on the same old drum, you know? Community has more or less broken down, we all live in our little boxes, and don't want to get involved, so we could have anything going on next door, and bury our heads in the sand.
The thing about non compulsory parenting classes is, only the decent people would want to attend them, so I don't think that would help.
Ok, how about reintroducing chastity belts. Anyone? ;P Lmao!
Thanks for your response! :)
@tundeemma (894)
• South Africa
5 Sep 09
maybe yes, i will support that and i definite support it because kids are precious and must be taken care off, not that people should just give birth to parent less kids and expecting the government to take care of them, it will be ideal for parents to stop giving birth to kids when they are broke financially
@Louc74 (620)
•
5 Sep 09
Yeah, it's just sad that some kids get no start in life. I'd love to have kids just now, but I won't until probably around 2 years from now, when I'll be in a much better position to give them what they need from me. But some people just think, it's my right to have a kid, and I'll just have one, and everything will be rosy in the garden. It's just sad.
Thanks for the comment :)
