Poll: Would You Support Requiring Parent License? (teens, playing, daughter)

[sskkc]

The results of that poll so far are scary to me. And show how little people 'think', imo.

The supposed overwhelming majority of this country believes in abortion, and that the government should stay out of their business regarding women's reproductive rights when they are choosing NOT to have a baby, but when choosing to allow the child to LIVE, then the vote is this close? I really hope this poll is somehow slanted. I checked the results expecting the overwhelming majority to have voted no.

Have the right to kill a child? YES!!
Have the right to raise a child? NO!!

Scary stuff.

Edited to add:

Oops - my bad... I guess now the majority (51/42) are pro-life. And it seems I've been believing all the 'bunk' in the mainstream media... there was never an overwhelming "pro-choice" majority. Still, I don't know anyone in RL who is pro-life (myself included) but would think a parenting license and giving politicians the right to decide whether or not we can raise a child we create is okay.

What do those who think a license should be necessary propose to do when someone gets pregnant that doesn't have permission? Will you FORCE abortions on them? Or will you take the children away at birth and give them to someone you feel is 'worthy'? Adoptive parents kill and abuse children too (as do foster parents), so our current system of vetting prospective parents would need to change, right? What would you want to change? What makes a good parent? Or rather, how do you measure what makes a good parent?

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by sskkc

The results of that poll so far are scary to me. And show how little people 'think', imo.

The supposed overwhelming majority of this country believes in abortion, and that the government should stay out of their business regarding women's reproductive rights when they are choosing NOT to have a baby, but when choosing to allow the child to LIVE, then the vote is this close? I really hope this poll is somehow slanted. I checked the results expecting the overwhelming majority to have voted no.

Have the right to kill a child? YES!!
Have the right to raise a child? NO!!

Scary stuff.

Edited to add:

Oops - my bad... I guess now the majority (51/42) are pro-life. And it seems I've been believing all the 'bunk' in the mainstream media... there was never an overwhelming "pro-choice" majority. Still, I don't know anyone in RL who is pro-life (myself included) but would think a parenting license and giving politicians the right to decide whether or not we can raise a child we create is okay.

What do those who think a license should be necessary propose to do when someone gets pregnant that doesn't have permission? Will you FORCE abortions on them? Or will you take the children away at birth and give them to someone you feel is 'worthy'? Adoptive parents kill and abuse children too (as do foster parents), so our current system of vetting prospective parents would need to change, right? What would you want to change? What makes a good parent? Or rather, how do you measure what makes a good parent?

I don't believe these questions will be answered by the pro-license crowd because their responses are of the gut reaction variety rather than a logical answer to the proposed question.

[JustJulia]

Originally Posted by CowanStern

This question has nothing to do with the reasons given in the two options. It's a purely practical one.

The issue is this: If your nation is going to engage in social engineering, by criminalizing unapproved parenthood, how is it to be enforced by your dream police state?

What is the penalty for having children without a license? Send the parents to prison? Make them pay a huge fine instead of providing food and shelter for their kids?

Mandatory abortions for unlicensed pregnancies? Sterilize offenders?

Take the kids away and create orphanages with tens of millions of unlicensed kids in them?

Who decides the criteria for licensing? Conservative Republicans have a majority in the State House, so they ban all Liberals from getting a license? Or the other way around?

Would Muslims get a license? Blind or deaf people? Non-English speakers, even in Puerto Rico?

Is the license federal, or up to each state?

Be careful what you wish for.

Yes, I fully agree--hence my flat no. The wording of the question and subsequent statement from the OP sounded like a setup to me anyway, as if by stating that I do not support government intrusion in parenting decisions that I should also not support entities such as Child Protective Services or anti-abuse laws.

To your list of questions, I'll add:

How would compliance be monitored? Would mothers be required to have babies in hospitals so that their papers could be checked? Would enforcement agencies have license to stop any visibly pregnant woman for questioning? How would parenthood status be monitored for men?

How much would the subsequent black market for falsified parenthood papers cost our government?

Would some of the "yes" votes support a more proactive approach, in which people are forcibly sterilized until the authorized government agency approves procreation? Would men and women all need to be sterilized, or just one sex? Given the fallibility of all reversible/temporary methods we have now, and the difficulty of reversing methods that are supposed to be permanent, what would be the ideal approach?

Does anybody really think we need an agency like the DMV to decide who can and can't have children?

[purehuman]

Originally Posted by Beans&Cornbread

Not sure if this has been a topic raised before...if so, I apologize and will be happy for Mods to delete.

Would you support requiring folks to complete education, training/counseling and obtain a license before having children??

That's CRAZY talk....no WAY....that'd be like asking folks to complete education, training/counseling and obtain a liscense before having sex....wonder how THAT would go over...I guess it would work about as well...which is not a all....

[DewDropInn]

No.

The lines at the DMV are long enough.

I can just see it now, "Take a number and sit in section 200A in the blue chairs. Watch the board for your number."

Though, come to think of it, it's a cheap form of birth control because NO ONE will want to sit in those horrible plastic chairs asking the person next to them what number they have.

[Virijat]

Yes I would support that in the perfect world but it would never work out. There would be too much controversy regarding the criteria used and the issue itself.

Besides, if it ever went ahead there wouldn't be many people left after a few decades because I believe most people wouldn't qualify to have children (and that would actually be a good thing but that's another story).

[warren zee]

I am not in favor of minors having and keeping children. It should be a privilege of people who are 21 and over. These kids are born to teen parents don't have a shot at life. I am sure people can trot out examples from their personal experience of children having children working.

I can cite statistics that say that it usually does not.

The kids who have kids get tired of playing house and the child suffers.

I am all for helping the poor, but when a child has a baby and decides to keep the child and raise it, statistically they are also deciding to live an impoverished life that includes frequent moves, multiple male figures, public assistance of some sort, limited cultural experiences, and a higher probability of family violence.

We require people to be a certain age to drive a car, sign a contract, adopt a pet from an animal shelter, and to marry, but not to have a child?

Instead of instituting redundant laws, why not just tweak the existing laws concerning the age of majority?

I am not in favor of a test. Some people test well and it would be unconstitutional. The age of majority idea would not.

[maciesmom]

Originally Posted by warren zee

I am not in favor of minors having and keeping children. It should be a privilege of people who are 21 and over. These kids are born to teen parents don't have a shot at life. I am sure people can trot out examples from their personal experience of children having children working.

I can cite statistics that say that it usually does not.

The kids who have kids get tired of playing house and the child suffers.

I am all for helping the poor, but when a child has a baby and decides to keep the child and raise it, statistically they are also deciding to live an impoverished life that includes frequent moves, multiple male figures, public assistance of some sort, limited cultural experiences, and a higher probability of family violence.

We require people to be a certain age to drive a car, sign a contract, adopt a pet from an animal shelter, and to marry, but not to have a child?

Instead of instituting redundant laws, why not just tweak the existing laws concerning the age of majority?

What and make the age of consent 21? How is that going to change anything?

[wawa1992]

Nope... I don't think the regulators would be any smarter than the average person.

[sskkc]

Originally Posted by warren zee

I am not in favor of minors having and keeping children. It should be a privilege of people who are 21 and over. These kids are born to teen parents don't have a shot at life. I am sure people can trot out examples from their personal experience of children having children working.

I can cite statistics that say that it usually does not.

The kids who have kids get tired of playing house and the child suffers.

I am all for helping the poor, but when a child has a baby and decides to keep the child and raise it, statistically they are also deciding to live an impoverished life that includes frequent moves, multiple male figures, public assistance of some sort, limited cultural experiences, and a higher probability of family violence.

We require people to be a certain age to drive a car, sign a contract, adopt a pet from an animal shelter, and to marry, but not to have a child?

Instead of instituting redundant laws, why not just tweak the existing laws concerning the age of majority?

I am not in favor of a test. Some people test well and it would be unconstitutional. The age of majority idea would not.

Again - what would you do with those children who were created "anyway"? Who decides THEN if a 17 year old pregnant girl has an abortion or not? How about a 13 year old one? Who adopts the child? Someone 'over the age of majority'? Will that become the ONLY standard?