Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect most of the posters on City Data are reasonably intelligent and are at worst financially, part of the working poor. I'd be surprised if there were a significant number of posters with a very low IQ and/or living in extreme poverty. With those assumptions, I'm curious how many of us would pass some of the licensing requirements that have been suggested.
I would have failed miserably at the time I had my child. I would fail even worse now, yet I'm a better parent (not that I think I was ever a bad parent). Actually, I probably would not have been allowed to have been born, so it wouldn't really have mattered. My husband would have failed before and at the time our child was born. He'd pass with flying colors now.
While I don't agree AT ALL with negativenancy, I at least appreciate that he/she has been willing to post why he/she may have voted "yes" and has at least thought of ideas. Bad ideas, I think, but at least she's thinking and willing to put himself/herself up to scrutiny, which is more than I can say for at least 25 other people who voted "yes" without explaining why.
So, how many posters think they would have been granted a license?
I suspect most of the posters on City Data are reasonably intelligent and are at worst financially, part of the working poor. I'd be surprised if there were a significant number of posters with a very low IQ and/or living in extreme poverty. With those assumptions, I'm curious how many of us would pass some of the licensing requirements that have been suggested.
I would have failed miserably at the time I had my child. I would fail even worse now, yet I'm a better parent (not that I think I was ever a bad parent). Actually, I probably would not have been allowed to have been born, so it wouldn't really have mattered. My husband would have failed before and at the time our child was born. He'd pass with flying colors now.
While I don't agree AT ALL with negativenancy, I at least appreciate that he/she has been willing to post why he/she may have voted "yes" and has at least thought of ideas. Bad ideas, I think, but at least she's thinking and willing to put himself/herself up to scrutiny, which is more than I can say for at least 25 other people who voted "yes" without explaining why.
So, how many posters think they would have been granted a license?
I totally agree with this. I absolutely appreciate nancy doing that too. It takes guts to do that when you're going against the grain.
2. Free and easy access to birth control for sexually active teens.
3. Required High school course on child development.
4. Free voluntary parenting classes for pregnant couples and for parents who have infants. After the two required courses which happen before the pregnancy, many couples would choose to take these if they were free.
While I don't agree AT ALL with negativenancy, I at least appreciate that he/she has been willing to post why he/she may have voted "yes" and has at least thought of ideas. Bad ideas, I think, but at least she's thinking and willing to put himself/herself up to scrutiny, which is more than I can say for at least 25 other people who voted "yes" without explaining why.
So, how many posters think they would have been granted a license?
Thirded. Also, I think my husband and I would have failed. I probably wouldn't have been born in the first place. My dad was 19 when he married my mom, and apparently our house in Florida was inhabited by palmetto bugs the size of gophers.
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?
There is a huge "market" for adoption. People are going overseas to adopt infants and paying big buck for it. Has no one noticed this?
There would be less kids having kids if the girl didn't get to keep the kid in the end.
The cycle would be broken when we take away the reward we give teenagers who get pregnant. We let them keep the baby and often give them money to set up a new household. (welfare or section 8)
Why not stop cutting funds for education, take the baby away why it is still not abused and send the girl to a vocational school or a community college.
Also give her birth control and counseling. And if she's religiously against birth control, I guess that would rule out per-maital sex also.
The test idea is not going to work but this just might.
Last edited by warren zee; 06-28-2012 at 08:24 AM..
There is a huge "market" for adoption. People are going overseas to adopt infants and paying big buck for it. Has no one noticed this?
There would be less kids having kids if the girl didn't get to keep the kid in the end.
The cycle would be broken when we take away the reward we give teenagers who get pregnant. We let them keep the baby and often give them money to set up a new household. (welfare or section 8)
Why not stop cutting funds for education, take the baby away why it is still not abused and send the girl to a vocational school or a community college.
Also give her birth control and counseling. And if she's religiously against birth control, I guess that would rule out per-maital sex also.
The test idea is not going to work but this just might.
Wow, so you are suggesting we punish pregnant teens by forcing them to become human incubators for those wishing to adopt? Nice.
And your assertion that there are no adoptable babies in the US is flawed. There are plenty of children needing good homes, they are just not desirable to those looking for the "perfect" family. There are approximately 425, 000 children in the foster care system at present, and 115, 000 of them are awaiting adoption.
Why not stop cutting funds for education, take the baby away why it is still not abused and send the girl to a vocational school or a community college.
Also give her birth control and counseling. And if she's religiously against birth control, I guess that would rule out per-maital sex also.
The test idea is not going to work but this just might.
Why not?
Because this is the United States of America and that's unconstitutional.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that in order to get a license in order to become a parent, you had to: attend a certain number of hours of parenting classes, pass a Red Cross Emergency First Aid Certification class, show proof of address, prove that you know how to make a PBJ sandwich and pour a glass of milk, pass a drug test, not have any criminal convictions involving children or any kind of domestic abuse, and show proof of health insurance OR proof of your financial ability to afford the cost of health care for your child.
I could support that. If it was something along those lines, I think it could do some good.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that in order to get a license in order to become a parent, you had to: attend a certain number of hours of parenting classes, pass a Red Cross Emergency First Aid Certification class, show proof of address, prove that you know how to make a PBJ sandwich and pour a glass of milk, pass a drug test, not have any criminal convictions involving children or any kind of domestic abuse, and show proof of health insurance OR proof of your financial ability to afford the cost of health care for your child.
I could support that. If it was something along those lines, I think it could do some good.
Ok, and what happens when you go ahead and get pregnant without said license, and refuse to get a license? Preggo prison, turn your kid over as soon as it is born to an 'approved' parent? What about the dude? Does he get a free pass or does he go to prison too? Or do we impose involuntary birth control on all post pubescent people until they can prove they have a valid license?
I dunno - maybe you are given a warning with a certain deadline to meet in order to get your license by? And if you don't meet that warning, perhaps visits from a social worker once a month until you do? Not like Social workers don't already have enough on their plate... but I'm just thinking outloud. Unexpected pregnancies happen all the time. It would have to be something they work into it if they were to ever do such a thing.
I was just trying to think of why it would ever be a good idea. So many people have voted yes on the poll. They must have some sort of reason(s).
I think the whole getting a driver's license thing is a big mess, actually. I think everyone should have to take driver's education classes. And I think that there are too many years in-between renewals, and the process for renewal in the states I have lived have been ridiculous. They basically just want your money and a current photo - they don't care if your physical or mental limitations have changed at all since you first got your license. I think when you go to renew, you should have to do written and driving tests again, too. Think of all the elderly people that really shouldn't be driving anymore. It would help keep them off the road. And things change over the course of the years - new signage and signals, new laws, etc. We would all benefit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
