Parenting license

[amorphous_constellation]

Not only that, it's also unavoidable.
But sterilizing only women would not only be unfair, it would also increase the imperfection that could be easily gained by equal treatment.

I am not pro coercion, I just imagine a world where most of the couples agree only to have 1-2 offspring for a time. But I think men and women could make their own birth control choices after that. If it doesn't always work, effort is enough. It would statistically work out, probably anyway

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not pro coercion, I just imagine a world where most of the couples agree only to have 1-2 offspring for a time. But I think men and women could make their own birth control choices after that. If it doesn't always work, effort is enough. It would statistically work out, probably anyway

Here's the thing though. You are talking about limiting birthrates for other reasons then what the OP is talking about.

You are talking about resources and "too many humans". Population growth to unsustainable sizes in terms of food and water availability etc.

The OP on the other hand is not talking about that. It is rather talking about a "license to have kids". Where the state decides if you are allowed to have children or not based on none other then a third party "approving" of you as a parent.

 

[Heyo]

Here's the thing though. You are talking about limiting birthrates for other reasons then what the OP is talking about.

You are talking about resources and "too many humans". Population growth to unsustainable sizes in terms of food and water availability etc.

The OP on the other hand is not talking about that. It is rather talking about a "license to have kids". Where the state decides if you are allowed to have children or not based on none other then a third party "approving" of you as a parent.

There are people who could use a course on parenting, that they have to pass to get a licence.

 

[PureX]

In that Dystopian world where it would be enforceable, the State will pay for the woman's tube ligation or hysterectomy.

And force an abortion? Good luck with that.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Here's the thing though. You are talking about limiting birthrates for other reasons then what the OP is talking about.

You are talking about resources and "too many humans". Population growth to unsustainable sizes in terms of food and water availability etc.

The OP on the other hand is not talking about that. It is rather talking about a "license to have kids". Where the state decides if you are allowed to have children or not based on none other then a third party "approving" of you as a parent.

Well what would that license be based on? It would be based on competence and resources

I used to post that I was pro-license in this matter, but I don't know. I'd rather people follow good general rules on their own about this kind of thing.. which I don't really think they do, but whatever.

If there had to be a license, it would be based on competence, and a resource to person ratio. After a couple has two kids, birth control use would come into the picture. The occasional 3rd kid, resulting from failed birth control, might keep the world population neutral

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well what would that license be based on? It would be based on competence and resources

1. so poor people can't have children? What if you become poor after you already have them?

2. no person is a competent parent before being a parent.

Also, how to define "competence"? Is a jehova witness who'll teach his/her child that science is not to be trusted, the world is 6000 years old and evolution is a satanic conspiracy "competent"? Is a mulsim who teaches his kid a "false religion" (according to the culture he happens to find himself in) "competent"?
What about a wealthy person who, to acquire that wealth, will typically work 12 hours per day and have his / her children basically raised by a nanny. Is that person "competent"? Or is it in that case the nanny that needs to be "licensed"? And if that's the case, could any "incompetent" person then not have children using a "licensed nanny"?

And off course, the window to abuse and corruption is just so insanely huge that it's not even funny. And if nothing else, to get a "license" you'll also always be at the mercy of the one doing the "evaluation". Some will be stricter then others.

It's just an utterly insane idea in my book. One that could never work in practice.

Yeah, sometimes, when you see what some parents do (in my experience: the vast, vast minority), it might be said "some people should not have a license for having kids!" - but that's just something that is said. It could never work in the real world. The result would be absolutely disastrous imo.

I used to post that I was pro-license in this matter, but I don't know. I'd rather people follow good general rules on their own about this kind of thing.. which I don't really think they do, but whatever.

If there had to be a license, it would be based on competence, and a resource to person ratio. After a couple has two kids, birth control use would come into the picture. The occasional 3rd kid, resulting from failed birth control, might keep the world population neutral

People on average today already have far, far, FAR less children then just 100 years ago.
Typically all people of my age had grandparents with siblings ranging from 5 to as much as 20.
Infant mortality was huge back then. My wife's grandfather had 18 siblings. 7 of them died in the same night from some disease causing diarrhea which today is dealt with swiftly with some simple medicine...
And today, people also tend to live a lot longer.

In my social circle, there are 2 couples who have 3 children. All others is just 2 or less.


There is off course something to say about population growth control, but it comes with serious downsides.
All those old people that aren't productive anymore... they need to be fed and cared for. You thus need young people to earn that money.
So it's not as easy as it sounds to just "restrict" the amount of children people have.

Less births = smaller working population 20 years later = less economic activity = less resource generation.
But still a LOT of old people to take care off, who themselves no longer contribute to economic production.
This would result in people having to work till the age of 70 or even longer as a result.

 

[Estro Felino]

And force an abortion? Good luck with that.

No... the child will be delivered and entrusted to the social services.

 

[PureX]

No... the child will be delivered and entrusted to the social services.

So the whole point is then faied. And so is the child.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No... the child will be delivered and entrusted to the social services.

Yeah and we all know how healthy such an environment is for children.

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah and we all know how healthy such an environment is for children.

As bad as that might sound, social services agencies are sometimes a better option than where many of these kids come from. Many of these of these incidents of child abuse are simply ghastly. I'm against the idea of a parenting license on general principle, but I do believe that our society (at least here in America) does a grave disservice to children in not adequately protecting them from exploitation and abuse.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As bad as that might sound, social services agencies are sometimes a better option than where many of these kids come from.

It wasn't said where these kids come from. All we know in this hypothetical is that they didn't have this monstrous "license". That is all.
They might just as well be perfectly decent parents who hadn't had their papers in order, or who had a license for only 2 kids and had a 3rd one anyway.

I'm against the idea of a parenting license on general principle, but I do believe that our society (at least here in America) does a grave disservice to children in not adequately protecting them from exploitation and abuse.

Sure. But as I stated in my previous post.... this is extremely thin ice.
What counts as "exploitation" and "abuse" is going to vary greatly between people's opinions, except for the extreme mega obvious like for example chaining your kids in the basement and raping them.

Note my other examples...
Is it "abuse" to raise them to believe science is evil, the world is 6000 years old and evolution is a satanic conspiracy? There goes a third of the USA.
What will and will not count as "abuse"? It's a very big question.

And it's a question I don't expect clear answers on in this thread.
Likely, it will have as many different answers as there will be users attempting to answer.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As bad as that might sound, social services agencies are sometimes a better option than where many of these kids come from. Many of these of these incidents of child abuse are simply ghastly. I'm against the idea of a parenting license on general principle, but I do believe that our society (at least here in America) does a grave disservice to children in not adequately protecting them from exploitation and abuse.

You can be against it in reality, but would you still explore how you would construct it, just as a philosophical exercise?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

1. so poor people can't have children? What if you become poor after you already have them?

before I respond to anything you said, I would say that you should be careful not to 'let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'

That said, I think it would depend on the aspirations of the poor people - they could be on a footing for future success. Such is probably the case with many competent young people. If you become poor after you have them, well then that sounds like a forgivable accident, as there was evidence of effort in that case

2. no person is a competent parent before being a parent.

There probably are some indicators of one's present state, that can interpolate a prediction. I would posit that if someone is deeply involved in addiction, and exhibiting erratic behavior, and not showing any effort to take care of themselves, then it seems likely that they probably aren't ready to be a parent, even if they want to be at that time.

Also, how to define "competence"? Is a jehova witness who'll teach his/her child that science is not to be trusted, the world is 6000 years old and evolution is a satanic conspiracy "competent"? Is a mulsim who teaches his kid a "false religion" (according to the culture he happens to find himself in) "competent"?

That people have all kinds of religious beliefs has probably always been true, but I think that this can be a smaller department of one's overall personality than people realize. I think that you can have loving Christian parents or abusive ones, loving Atheist parents or abusive ones. I think this might depend somewhat on how beliefs are interpreted. What enters the perspective seems mutable, as it comes across the bridge from belief to perspective. If you tell me someone's belief system, I can't tell you how they will act. If you tell me they are often angry, I have a better idea

What about a wealthy person who, to acquire that wealth, will typically work 12 hours per day and have his / her children basically raised by a nanny. Is that person "competent"? Or is it in that case the nanny that needs to be "licensed"? And if that's the case, could any "incompetent" person then not have children using a "licensed nanny"?

I assume it would be better to stack good qualities. I went to a public school with what were probably some good, well-meaning teachers, but when I came home my dad was a bad alcoholic, and very hard to be around. I would posit that a cumulative effect would have been better - a synergy of good parent and good teacher

And off course, the window to abuse and corruption is just so insanely huge that it's not even funny. And if nothing else, to get a "license" you'll also always be at the mercy of the one doing the "evaluation". Some will be stricter then others.

What about a license with a very low minimum threshold of standards. Can you imagine that? How would that look like

People on average today already have far, far, FAR less children then just 100 years ago.

Well, they say the world population is still growing. The roads around here are getting busier every year, they keep widening them.

There is off course something to say about population growth control, but it comes with serious downsides.
All those old people that aren't productive anymore... they need to be fed and cared for. You thus need young people to earn that money.
So it's not as easy as it sounds to just "restrict" the amount of children people have.

I really think there is a way around that problem, but I haven't thought about it hard enough. Old folks can get sent to senior centers, and they are building a ton of them around here, but I wonder if that's the best way.. as I imagine those are expensive. I think having multi-generational homes seems like it played a historical role in western history, but somewhere down the line that notion was dissolved. And as well, that can also be domestically difficult. I'm not sure. Part of the answer to this concern, is how housing is organized

Less births = smaller working population 20 years later = less economic activity = less resource generation.
But still a LOT of old people to take care off, who themselves no longer contribute to economic production.

I don't necessarily belief that raising gdp via a growing population is the answer. I think that tends to make money for the rich

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Perhaps all children should be brought up by the state.

 

[Stevicus]

You can be against it in reality, but would you still explore how you would construct it, just as a philosophical exercise?

Sure, as a philosophical exercise, it might be interesting to explore.

 

[Stevicus]

It wasn't said where these kids come from. All we know in this hypothetical is that they didn't have this monstrous "license". That is all.
They might just as well be perfectly decent parents who hadn't had their papers in order, or who had a license for only 2 kids and had a 3rd one anyway.

Perhaps, but if kids end up in the custody of social services, then chances are, where they came from is likely much worse.

Sure. But as I stated in my previous post.... this is extremely thin ice.
What counts as "exploitation" and "abuse" is going to vary greatly between people's opinions, except for the extreme mega obvious like for example chaining your kids in the basement and raping them.

Note my other examples...
Is it "abuse" to raise them to believe science is evil, the world is 6000 years old and evolution is a satanic conspiracy? There goes a third of the USA.
What will and will not count as "abuse"? It's a very big question.

And it's a question I don't expect clear answers on in this thread.
Likely, it will have as many different answers as there will be users attempting to answer.

I don't believe that a third of the USA believes that science is evil. However, I get your general point, and there may very well be disagreement as to what constitutes abuse.

 

[Heyo]

Perhaps all children should be brought up by the state.

Many are already. When teachers have to put in more time to socialize kids than to educate, they are doing the parents' work.