Parenting license

[Estro Felino]

I have been talking about my ideas about parenthood...and while debating with some of my friends and other acquaintances, they accused me of wanting to impose a parenting license on the citizens, so only the State can give the authorization to citizens to procreate.

I think it may sound Dystopian, of course.
But I don't think it would be a bad idea. I mean...after all...social services are very lacking in most EU countries.
(Let's say that the EU technocrats only care about banking and finance, they have no idea of what society is, unfortunately).

With a new budget package, a new Ministry of Infancy would potentiate a sector that has always been neglected.
A team of physicians and psychologists will give the license to these parents.

Thoughts?

 

[McBell]

How is it to be funded?
How is it to be enforced?
What are the penalties for violating it?

 

[Estro Felino]

How is it to be funded?

It will be funded by the State, of course.
The State has lots of money. Instead of wasting it on stupid and idiotic wars created by the American Democratic Party...it can fund a new ministry.

How is it to be enforced?

As I said, through the Ministry of Infancy and Motherhood.
Which will not have a controlling authority of course. But a supporting force for motherhood, mothers who really have the parental vocation will be supported by the State.
Agencies of the State will hire thousands of psychologists and other professional to ascertain the conditions

What are the penalties for violating it?

Well... nothing penal.
The measure is dissuasive, not punitive. Civil trials for the child's custody will take care of it.

That means that nothing will happen if it happens one time. But at the second time, the child will be taken into the Social Service's custody.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I don't think it would be a bad idea.

It is a horrible, not to say horrifying, idea.

I mean...after all...social services are very lacking in most EU countries.

How so? Be specific.

With a new budget package, a new Ministry of Infancy would potentiate a sector that has always been neglected.

What would its purpose be?

A team of physicians and psychologists will give the license to these parents.

I'll humor you by asking what the criteria would be.

Thoughts?

A cold shiver down my spine, but let's see your answers.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is a horrible, not to say horrifying, idea.

I expected you to say that it's a Nazi idea. Or a fascist idea.

How so? Be specific.

Yes, there are lacking Social Services in most EU countries.
Without staff, underfunded, without resources.

What would its purpose be?

To avoid psycho parents mistreating and neglecting their own biological children.

Are you aware that people need to be monitored by the State before adopting a child?
I don't understand why fertile couples have the right to procreate...just because they are capable of having sex.

Do you have any idea of how many children committed suicide because of abusive parents?
Not all people are suitable to be parents.

I'll humor you by asking what the criteria would be.

I said just psychologists will give that license.
So ascertaining the parental vocation. It has nothing to do with economic status.

 

[bobhikes]

I have been talking about my ideas about parenthood...and while debating with some of my friends and other acquaintances, they accused me of wanting to impose a parenting license on the citizens, so only the State can give the authorization to citizens to procreate.

I think it may sound Dystopian, of course.
But I don't think it would be a bad idea. I mean...after all...social services are very lacking in most EU countries.
(Let's say that the EU technocrats only care about banking and finance, they have no idea of what society is, unfortunately).

With a new budget package, a new Ministry of Infancy would potentiate a sector that has always been neglected.
A team of physicians and psychologists will give the license to these parents.

Thoughts?

To be honest there should be more preparation for marriage as a whole and parental training could be a part. I would also like to know how you plan on handling accidental pregnancies. No method of birth control except abstinence is 100 percent effective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To be honest there should be more preparation for marriage as a whole

???

Because having children without being married is somehow illegal or should be??

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, there are lacking Social Services in most EU countries.
Without staff, underfunded, without resources.

You are just repeating your claims.
I asked "how so? be specific"

Vague abstract statements are not going to cut it.
Be specific. How are social services "lacking", specifically in context of childcare.

To avoid psycho parents mistreating and neglecting their own biological children.

We already have such in place... There's no need for entire ministry dedicated to just that.

Are you aware that people need to be monitored by the State before adopting a child?

This is a misrepresentation. But it is irrelevant. In adoption you are taking in someone else's child, not your own. Different situation entirely.

I don't understand why fertile couples have the right to procreate...just because they are capable of having sex.

How about: because it is a fundamental human right?

Do you have any idea of how many children committed suicide because of abusive parents?
Not all people are suitable to be parents.

Which you'll find out after they have kids, not before hand.

I said just psychologists will give that license.
So ascertaining the parental vocation. It has nothing to do with economic status.

It would be an insane violation of basic human rights.

 

[bobhikes]

???

Because having children without being married is somehow illegal or should be??

Well if we are going to be training parents then yes. Because it has been proven that the best benefits for children is having 2 caring parents.

Not that any of this is ever going to happen but when the decision is made to have children. The children who were forced to be brought in this world should be given all the benefits until they reach adulthood. Otherwise don't bring children into the world.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is a misrepresentation. But it is irrelevant. In adoption you are taking in someone else's child, not your own. Different situation entirely.

What do you mean?
Do you mean that biological parents have the right to mistreat their biological children, because they have the same DNA as them?
Or do you mean that biological parents never mistreat their own children?

How about: because it is a fundamental human right?

Not quite.
It is a fundamental human right to have loving parents.

Which you'll find out after they have kids, not before hand.

How?
The State cannot control millions of families and millions of kids?
It would be impossible.

It's the parents who would need to go to the public offices to obtain the parental license.
Not the State going into millions households to check on the kids.

It would be an insane violation of basic human rights.

Again.
I expected you to say it was something nazi. Say it...if you want.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well if we are going to be training parents then yes. Because it has been proven that the best benefits for children is having 2 caring parents.

My children have two caring parents. We aren't married.
Marriage is not at all a requirement to be good parents.

Not that any of this is ever going to happen but when the decision is made to have children. The children who were forced to be brought in this world should be given all the benefits until they reach adulthood. Otherwise don't bring children into the world.

Don't see how marriage somehow guarantees that or even raises chances of such.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

No method of birth control except abstinence is 100 percent effective.

and except something that the supreme court got rid of

 

[amorphous_constellation]

How about: because it is a fundamental human right?

I'm skeptical. I don't know. I think there were times in history where it was an obligation to reproduce, like when you needed people to take down a mammoth, or create a neolithic farm. Where does the idea of it being a 'right' enter history? It seemed like a right for probably thousands of years, but it was probably more like an obligation

 

[amorphous_constellation]

How is it to be funded?
How is it to be enforced?
What are the penalties for violating it?

It probably would make money, as funding for anti-social enforcement would be deducted. I wouldn't enforce it, I'd want a population that was convinced it was the right thing to do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you mean?

I think it was quite clear...

Do you mean that biological parents have the right to mistreat their biological children, because they have the same DNA as them?

I said nothing even remotely close to that.

Or do you mean that biological parents never mistreat their own children?

I said nothing like that either.

Try reading with a spec of attention.

Not quite.

Except yes.

https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/RRareHR_final.pdf

All individuals have reproductive rights, which are grounded in a constellation of fundamental human rights guarantees. These guarantees are found in the oldest and most accepted human rights instruments, as well as in more recently adopted international and regional treaties.

How?

By how they treat their kids, how else?

The State cannot control millions of families and millions of kids?
It would be impossible.

They don't have to. There's social control. At school, in the community, in sport camps, family gatherings, etc.
Any of them can sound the alarm bell when fishy things are going on.

For example, a few years ago my son tripped and hit his head against the side of the door. He had a gaping wound on his forehead. A nasty deep cut about 3cm long. Blood everywhere. We rushed to the ER. Hospital personal "interrogated" both me and my wife separately. Multiple times. This to check our stories to make sure the boy actually tripped and that the wound wasn't the result of any kind of mistreatment.

If our stories wouldn't have matched or if they thought it was suspicious in any way, they would have alerted the authorities and social workers would have come to our house and all that. An investigation would have happened.

On another occasion, a boy from my son's class was noted to be bruised all the time. Every other week he would have other bruises. Due to unclear explanations of how he got them, social workers were alerted. Investigation followed. And idd, turns out the father had a alcohol problem and in fact hit his children and stuff. He was forced to commit in a rehab center and social workers visited their home at random moments for months after that, to make sure everything was ok.

It's the parents who would need to go to the public offices to obtain the parental license.

Absurd and gross violation of human rights.

Not the State going into millions households to check on the kids.

See above. This is not needed.

Again.
I expected you to say it was something nazi. Say it...if you want.

It's certainly borderline eugenics.
But in any case, it's enough to say that it's a gross violation of human rights.

No constitution in any western secular democratic country would allow for it.

 

[Stevicus]

I have been talking about my ideas about parenthood...and while debating with some of my friends and other acquaintances, they accused me of wanting to impose a parenting license on the citizens, so only the State can give the authorization to citizens to procreate.

I think it may sound Dystopian, of course.
But I don't think it would be a bad idea. I mean...after all...social services are very lacking in most EU countries.
(Let's say that the EU technocrats only care about banking and finance, they have no idea of what society is, unfortunately).

With a new budget package, a new Ministry of Infancy would potentiate a sector that has always been neglected.
A team of physicians and psychologists will give the license to these parents.

Thoughts?

It seems like it would infringe upon human rights. But I would also agree that parental rights should not outweigh the rights of their children. There's an assumption in society which implies that humans are somehow imbued with some sort "special wisdom" once they become parents (something non-parents could never understand, from what I'm told).

Therefore, the legal authorities enforce the idea that parents practically own their children and should be allowed to do whatever they want to them, short of extreme physical abuse or neglect. In that sense, parents have already been given "license" to run roughshod over the constitutional rights of their children. We don't need a "parenting license," but perhaps we need more proactive and robust enforcement of laws protecting the human rights of children.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Therefore, the legal authorities enforce the idea that parents practically own their children and should be allowed to do whatever they want to them, short of extreme physical abuse or neglect. In that sense, parents have already been given "license" to run roughshod over the constitutional rights of their children.

This is simply not true. At least not in secular constitutional democracies that actually respect universal human rights.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm skeptical. I don't know. I think there were times in history where it was an obligation to reproduce, like when you needed people to take down a mammoth, or create a neolithic farm. Where does the idea of it being 'right' enter history? It seemed like a right for probably thousands of years, but it was probably more like an obligation

Ever heard of universal human rights?

 

[Estro Felino]

It seems like it would infringe upon human rights. But I would also agree that parental rights should not outweigh the rights of their children. There's an assumption in society which implies that humans are somehow imbued with some sort "special wisdom" once they become parents (something non-parents could never understand, from what I'm told).

Well... indeed. It turns out that the famous Menendez brothers had two narcissistic parents who abused them psychologically.

Well... I don't think they should have been parents in their first place. They would be alive, now.

Therefore, the legal authorities enforce the idea that parents practically own their children and should be allowed to do whatever they want to them, short of extreme physical abuse or neglect. In that sense, parents have already been given "license" to run roughshod over the constitutional rights of their children. We don't need a "parenting license," but perhaps we need more proactive and robust enforcement of laws protecting the human rights of children.

Absolutely wise and sensible stance.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think it was quite clear...



I said nothing even remotely close to that.



I said nothing like that either.

Try reading with a spec of attention.


Except yes.

https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/RRareHR_final.pdf

All individuals have reproductive rights, which are grounded in a constellation of fundamental human rights guarantees. These guarantees are found in the oldest and most accepted human rights instruments, as well as in more recently adopted international and regional treaties.



By how they treat their kids, how else?



They don't have to. There's social control. At school, in the community, in sport camps, family gatherings, etc.
Any of them can sound the alarm bell when fishy things are going on.

For example, a few years ago my son tripped and hit his head against the side of the door. He had a gaping wound on his forehead. A nasty deep cut about 3cm long. Blood everywhere. We rushed to the ER. Hospital personal "interrogated" both me and my wife separately. Multiple times. This to check our stories to make sure the boy actually tripped and that the wound wasn't the result of any kind of mistreatment.

If our stories wouldn't have matched or if they thought it was suspicious in any way, they would have alerted the authorities and social workers would have come to our house and all that. An investigation would have happened.

On another occasion, a boy from my son's class was noted to be bruised all the time. Every other week he would have other bruises. Due to unclear explanations of how he got them, social workers were alerted. Investigation followed. And idd, turns out the father had a alcohol problem and in fact hit his children and stuff. He was forced to commit in a rehab center and social workers visited their home at random moments for months after that, to make sure everything was ok.




Absurd and gross violation of human rights.



See above. This is not needed.


It's certainly borderline eugenics.
But in any case, it's enough to say that it's a gross violation of human rights.

No constitution in any western secular democratic country would allow for it.

With all due respect...but if we lived in a EU that cares about families instead of worshipping banksters like deities...
well...I guess children would be safeguarded more.

Now I am going to ask you a question (I doubt you will answer...): do you think this EU as institution does anything to protect children and families? Yes or no.