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 don't have a huge problem with the supposed civil right violation necessarily. There is clearly a public good in protecting children. But the idea of what principles will be used to make the determination? Do I have to be "christian"? Would my gay friends be exempt? My poly friends? All it would take would be a greater interest from the evangelical christians, and there we would be. What would they have to know about my medical history? Do the mistakes of my youth disqualify me? What do my politics need to be? Do we really think all of these things won't play a part?
Then on the other hand, what would we do for prevention/enforcement? That is a wicket so sticky, I don't dare touch it.
Our system is broken, beyond doubt. But replacing with licensing is not the answer IMO.
The same legal criteria for adopting a newborn, would be the same legal criteria for raising your own newborn. Or hey, how about a parent-competence hearing, like they do in the case of divorces and child custody? My concern is: Who acquires the custody of a child. Currently, the mother does, by default, and that default only changes if "something happens." If there was some way to do this preventitively, in a way that would be fair and humane to all parties, I'd jump on the bandwagon.
I leave the "hows" and "wherefores" to someone else. I just wish it was possible. Or, conversely, I wish people who aren't cut out to be parents, would voluntarily stop being parents. But you know that ain't gonna happen.
Again, I think it is a completely different thing when you are raising your own biological child and asking to raise a ward of the state. They are two different animals.
The same legal criteria for adopting a newborn, would be the same legal criteria for raising your own newborn. Or hey, how about a parent-competence hearing, like they do in the case of divorces and child custody? My concern is: Who acquires the custody of a child. Currently, the mother does, by default, and that default only changes if "something happens." If there was some way to do this preventitively, in a way that would be fair and humane to all parties, I'd jump on the bandwagon.
I leave the "hows" and "wherefores" to someone else. I just wish it was possible. Or, conversely, I wish people who aren't cut out to be parents, would voluntarily stop being parents. But you know that ain't gonna happen.
The devil is in the details here.
Who is going to take care of the tens of thousands of newborns YEARLY that this is going to generate?
The only difference to me is one has to prove they qualify beforehand. The other doesn't have to prove a thing until someone complains after the fact.
Wrong.
The difference is in a government adoption, the government is acting as the person responsible for a child placed in its care from the CHOICE of the adoptive parent.
In the scenario you are giving the government is taking children away from their parents, and then deciding whether or not to give them back.
Even adoptive parents get to decide whether or not to give their child up.
In this scenario, parents have no say in what happens to their children.
My *opinion* isn't wrong. The difference, to me,...which is why I included those two words. As far as I'm concerned, regardless of what *actual* differences might or might not exist, that is the only difference that has significance. To me.
As for who's gonna take care of the tens of thousands of newborns...as I said (which you quoted):
Quote:
I leave the "hows" and "wherefores" to someone else. I just wish it was possible.
My *opinion* isn't wrong. The difference, to me,...which is why I included those two words. As far as I'm concerned, regardless of what *actual* differences might or might not exist, that is the only difference that has significance. To me.
As for who's gonna take care of the tens of thousands of newborns...as I said (which you quoted):
Do I really need to add "whos"?
Yes, if you are making the claim that such a system is ethical and possible, you should at least be able to give the basics of how you at least think it should work. Otherwise what is the point?
Yes, if you are making the claim that such a system is ethical and possible, you should at least be able to give the basics of how you at least think it should work. Otherwise what is the point?
The point is, it was asked. Someone asked our opinions. We were invited to answer them. My opinion - is that I wish we could implement some kind of test, or license, or other sort of thing, that provides proof that someone is qualified to be a parent. According to MY ethics, I think that's a swell idea. How would we implement it? I have no idea.
Sort of like, I wish I owned a car that flew and presented me with fresh-blended pina coladas, and would send me back in time and to any location at the push of a button. How would it work? I have no idea. But I think it'd be a swell idea. You are entitled not to agree. But don't tell me I'm wrong for having my opinion. Or actually, feel free to tell me I'm wrong. It's a meaningless statement. If you enjoy making meaningless statements, have at it.
Parenting is a full time nonstop job that doesn't end til the parents are dead. If people aren't willing to invest themselves fully into being a parent, then they should not do it. If parenting isn't a priority enough for them to even decide that, then the decision should be taken away from them. Parenting is a privilege, and a responsibility. It isn't a right. And it shouldn't be a right for women simply because they gave birth. Giving birth is a right. Parenting is a responsibility and a privilege.
Yes! This is exactly how I feel.
It's heartbreaking how many childless couples there are that would make ideal parents yet have to jump through so many hoops to adopt and wait for years. While at the same time, there are so so many people popping out kids who they have no desire for, no interest in, and who fall victim to abuse, sometimes fatal. How many more stories of horribly abused kids do we need to hear about before something changes? The CPS system fails, at the very least because any action happens after the fact - and by that time, irreversible damage to the child may have already been done. Like AnonChick, I don't know how to create a system that would prevent such damage before it's done - but I do believe something should be in place to make sure that a person having a child has the basic competence to raise it. And NO, that does not mean they have to be Christian or straight or rich - in fact, I still don't understand why people keep bringing that up when all the 'for' people have been repeating the entire thread that it should only be about basic competence, lack of a history of abuse, no current substance abuse, etc. And in terms of people turning their lives around after having kids - well, I'm sorry, but I don't believe a child should be an experiment in human motivation. If you want the child, that should be the stimulation for turning your life around - and if it's not, you're not ready to have the kid - simple as that.
Again, I think it is a completely different thing when you are raising your own biological child and asking to raise a ward of the state. They are two different animals.
Yea - the only reason for that being is the state has to cover its own ass when it comes to adopting a child out. With bio parents, they can close their eyes because they don't care - it doesn't affect them. No one actually considers the child's own well being in this scenario, and the issue of preventing bad things from happening to them - before, not after the fact. This is a purely legal distinction that doesn't take the child's best interests into consideration, only the potential legal ramifications for the guardians. And that's depressing.
The bottom line seems to be that licensing parents would be fraught with difficulties, as many posters have already pointed out. It would also be a bureaucratic nightmare and incredibly expensive.
I think chipping away at the problem of ineffective or abusive parenting via education is the only realistic way to go. If it were up to me, I’d implement a year (or at least a term) of classes in schools, in the last year of mandatory schooling, and continued at a more advanced level in senior years.
The classes would cover such issues as:
Healthy eating - using fresh fruit and vegetables in season; cheap and easy cooking techniques for producing simple healthy meals; good fats/bad fats; adding flavour via herbs and spices rather than fat and sugar; the food pyramid, etc. etc.
Safety in the home – smoke alarms, recognising potentially faulty electrical items (frayed cords, strange smell etc); baby-proofing your home, home security (why guns should be locked away, don’t open the door to strangers, etc).
Effective methods of controlling anger, frustration, resentment etc. and appropriate disciplinary methods for younger children.
Simple budgeting.
All of these issues would be presented as mainly for the benefit of the teenagers in the class, rather than as a parenting class - to minimise the possibility that people see the class as encouraging teens to make babies.
In Australia, NZ and Britain it is very common for pregnant women and their partners to attend antenatal classes, to prepare them for the upcoming birth. The class usually runs for six or eight weeks, one night a week for a couple of hours. They’re held at the hospital, the local baby health centre or some other community facility. Costs seem to vary – perhaps by region, or demographics, or who is leading the class. A jaunt through google revealed some are free, some are via donation, some are $30-$50, and a few cost up to $200 (per couple, per entire course). In the case of the more expensive courses, it seems some of the cost is covered by health insurance. I don’t know what percentage of pregnant couples attend these classes in Australia, but can say that almost everyone I know attended, especially in the case of first babies. I couldn’t find anything on the internet about similar courses in the US, so presume they are not very common, or perhaps even non-existent. Here’s more info if you’re interested: Antenatal classes
Again, if I was in charge, I would ensure that most expectant couples have reasonable access to antenatal classes, at a realistic price (or free for low-income couples) – and I’d extend them by a few weeks so that parenting (rather than just birthing) issues can be covered.
I wouldn’t make attendance compulsory, but would try and offer incentives to encourage people to want to go. Perhaps receiving baby baskets of goodies (sponsored by the manufacturers)…. or something.
It won’t solve the problem overnight, nor will it eradicate the problem altogether, but when people know better, they generally do better.
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.
