Breeding Liscence...

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

If that were statistically true, which it's not, I would have added it in. Anyways, I said "tend to" not "always do". Try to read properly next time.

I read it exactly how you typed it. You said "studies show". I said you can find an equal amount supporting the opposite point.

Statistically is absolutely no different. You brought up the studies and statistics yourself, if you saw them then there is no way you could possibly argue that point. Now there is always the chance you saw "a" study which didn't represent the information correctly, is so I simply ask you to check further into it.

Now if you say statistically, a child exposed to abuse if more likely to develop mental disorders, you would be correct. But mental disorders is a blanket statement covering your point, my point, as well as depression, schizophrenia, mania and many others.

More than likely the studies you saw stated to the effect that "children who are abused are more likely to be abusive". That doesn't mean the majority of children who are abused, abuse their kids. It means that people who are abused have a higher chance of being abusive. It really is a large difference when you follow it up with "it usually isn't the case".

Side Note: Looking back at my original post, I will say my last sentence directed at you was below the belt. For that I appologize, I don't tend to attack unless in retaliation. Bleh, must be spending too much time on the WoW off topic. That aside, the point still stands.

 

[Anakha1]

I stated my point because I've seen many more studies that show children are more likely to grow up abusive than they are to grow up introverted. What your studies show, I can't say as I haven't seen all the ones you have. Either way I'll admit that what you say is a distinct possibility, but I think we can agree that abuse never has good consequences. Excessive introversion can be just as harmful.

 

[asdf]

I can just imagine how this would work out.

First drug addicts and pople with aids and so on wouldnt be allowed to breed.

Then people convicted of drug related crimes wouldnt be alowed to breed.

Then people convicted of violent crimes like murder and ****.

Then lesser and lesser crimes.

Then people bellow and above a certain age.

Then immigrants wouldnt be allowed to breed.

And so on and so on.

i certainly hope not. the democratic system better not have only idiots voting.

anyway, i think you guys are looking too much into the whole psychological development stuff. the fact remains that beating a child is still beating a child. serious physical abuse should be outlawed.

 

[Anyee]

I am watching a smack addict try to raise a child. Kid was starved, beaten, and allowed to wander onto a major highway. Her sister is doing it for her now, and 100x better. I don't care what you do with your body and your drugs, but don't raise children while impaired.

Dragon, I'm having a hard time finding these studies that show abusers are as likely not to abuse as they are to abuse. Can you link me a to a few?

 

[asdf]

This is a terrible idea. it would grant the government the power to say--hey you...you can't have kids. I don't see how you could possibly see this as a good thing. just sit and think about this a sec. would this do more good or more harm? would it really do much good at all?

hey, this man convicted of molesting multiple children should not be allowed to raise kids.
hey, this serial murderer shouldn't be allowed to raise kids
these parents have repeatedly beaten their children. they should lose their licenses.

so you want to have a test to screen out bad parents but any idiot could pass it so it would be useless. okay.

who said any idiot could pass? driving tests only take common sense and a bit of practince yet people are failing the exams every day. do you think the DMV is completely useless because nearly everyone who's tried has passed the exams? would the roads be equally safe if nobody needed to take those exams?

this would ensure that anyone wishing to become a parent at least has the base knowledge. of course some people are going to break a rule or two but it's better than nothing. and there would still be a criminal background check.

Psychological test? do you know how subjective that would be? again if you made it so everyone could pass it it would be of no use...if you made it hard enough that one person failed it, then it would still be a gross misuse of governmental power.

i'm not completely sure if the psychological test would work, that was just a proposal. might just scrap the idea and leave it at the criminal check.

oh cuz that's not so bad. at least nothing terrible would happen.

I say we make you the guy in charge of telling women that they are unfit mothers and then YOU take the child away. Explain to her that your test has determined that she's not smart enough or not psychologically stable enough to keep it.

right. a simple test, during, say, the last 6 months of pregnancy she fails multiple times. and WHY would she fail? is she a child abuser? drug addict? too stupid to figure out that babies need to be fed multiple times a day? i certainly wouldn't want a mother like that raising ANY child, even her own.

ASDF you completely missed the point of what you were talking about. you are proposing we give pregnant women tests to determine if they are "fit" parents...a term that will be completely determined by some pyschological profiler in some cubicle somewhere. then if she fails, you take the kid away...or you abort it.

i never mentioned forced abortions.

and again, if they fail such a test then they are bound to screw up in the future. why do driving examiners fail people who never signal properly on the exam?

well I'm glad it's not as hard as getting a DL.

...

they'll get it eventually.

so why so much fuss about a simple license to raise kids?

as for getting a pet, there is no reason for a license because laws already exist for controlling animal abusers. oh wait they have the same kinda laws for kids too. so this would be equally silly.

unfortunately, these laws can only react to a situation AFTER something's already gone wrong.

snipped a bunch of rambling that i didn't quite get. and i'll explain what a straw man is though: misrepresenting an opponent's views, then attacking that representation. i.e. saying that i am facist/support forced abortions/support forced tube tying. i never mentioned any of that stuff.

EDIT:innocent until proven guilty

however, nowhere does it state in the constitution (as far as i'm aware) the right to raise children. i'm sure the right to conception isn't there either but i won't touch that one.

do people inherently have a right to drive? no. driving is a responsibility and they have to prove they have that responsibility by obtaining a license. there's no punishment in taking away their ability to drive because they didn't have a right to do so in the first place. i think the same should apply for raising a child.

 

[Satans_Advocate]

You talk about using common sense, perhaps you could use some of your own advice. Raising and procreating children is a human right. Driving is NOT a human right. A child is an individuals own creation, something anyone has a right to participate in. Disadvantaging the entire populatin with a test in order to stop a tiny minority is ludicrus. And there isn't any gurantee that the tests will work - you are generalizng all child abusers as fools and claim they must take "common sense tests" in order to have a child. Well, I hate to break your bubble, but not all ( or even most ) child abusers are idiots. They are cruel, nasty people. Intelligence and morals are two completely different boats and you are putting them in the same boat nonetheless. Punish them when they abuse the child - not before. Stiffer punishments for child abuse will help halt it - government intrusion and nannying in personal affairs will not.

 

[Anakha1]

Since when is procreating a human right? Human rights are subjective. Created by humans in their own minds. And what about the child's rights? Just because you created that child doesn't mean you own it.

 

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I'll go through some stuff here, I will try to provide as many raw statistics as I can, but keep in mind finding statistics of child abuse directly relating to later behavioral development can be hard to come by due mainly to the fact it is such a strict criteria, and because statistical studies of any kind are usually inherently flawed. I prefer studies myself, which still isn't saying much depending on the organization that does that particular study.

From - http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/usermanuals/treatmen/conseq.cfm

This showing the direct consequences of abuse pointing towards passiveness and violence respectively.

Consequences Within the Behavioral Conduct Category

Salter, Richardson, and Kairys argue that physically abused children do not behave any differently than other children under another type of stress.33 These researchers also report that children's reactions to distress can be described "in one of two ways: 'internalizing' or 'overcontrolled' (i.e., inhibited, shy, anxious) behaviors and 'externalizing' or 'undercontrolled' (i.e., acting out, aggressive) behaviors." 34 Although this finding may be true, children have a developmentally limited verbal capacity; they must rely on a specific set of symptoms to express distress. Therefore, they may engage in internalizing behaviors, in externalizing behaviors or in both. What is of interest are those behaviors that are unique to, or more likely to occur with, physically abused children.

One such symptom or behavior that is commonly reported as a consequence of physical abuse is the increase in aggressive behavior. Both verbal and physically aggressive behavior have been reported by studies investigating physically abused children. The process of being raised in an environment in which physical abuse is used as a common response to problems, feelings, and conflicts impairs several important developmental functions (e.g., problem-solving, accepting delayed gratification, and impulse control).35 Without the opportunity to learn these functions, children use methods or respond in ways that utilize mechanisms modeled for them within their family (i.e., aggression). Therefore, when placed in a situation in which he/she experiences conflict, negative affect, or a problem, an abused child resorts to some type of verbal or physical hostility as a means to a resolution or to fulfill his/her unmet needs.

It appears from reviewing their behavior, that there are two primary response patterns that children use in coping with the distress of living with an abusive parent. The first response is a negative, resistant, verbally and behaviorally hostile pattern. The second response is a fearful, passive, and compliant pattern. However, it has not yet been shown that abused children adopt these patterns across all daily interpersonal situations. For example, while an abused child may adopt these patterns of behavior in relation to his/her abusive parent, he/she may react differently (outside the bounds of these patterns) when interacting with peers or other adults. Again, the common interpersonal response and action appears to center on the relatively quick move toward aggression and hostility. The specific reasons for this response are unclear, but they may include displaced parental anger, increased vigilance and the expectation of aggression from others, social modeling of aggressive problem-solving, and a limited range of conflict resolution abilities

From Michigan University -http://www.med.umich.edu/abusehurts/cpt/stats.htm

Don't let the source fool you, this is actually a widely accepted report used by the DHCS. This roughly shows that the rate of abuse from those who have been abused is at around 29%, showing that those abused are more likely to abuse, however it shows that it isn't the most prevalant result of abuse. It attempts to show the other effects of abuse, but does it poorly.

***

When I get more time, I can find some more viable information. Though this does make us drift off the original topic a bit. Obviously child abuse is wrong, however it shouldn't be used as an arguement in licensing child birth. You can't deny someone on the fact they were abused as a child, it does not mean they will abuse a child. Substance abuse from legal to illegal is just as much a cause of abuse as prior abuse. Would you then prevent those who participate in their use for that same reason? At which point, how much use then becomes abuse thereby preventing you from legally having a child? To many factors play a part in this. You really can't deny someone at all based on something they "might" do.

If you start on the parents, what do you do about abuse by other relatives and neighbors/friends? Almost as common as parents I believe, yet licensing would not cover the issue at all.

 

[Stevinator]

hey, this man convicted of molesting multiple children should not be allowed to raise kids.
hey, this serial murderer shouldn't be allowed to raise kids
these parents have repeatedly beaten their children. they should lose their licenses.


who said any idiot could pass? driving tests only take common sense and a bit of practince yet people are failing the exams every day. do you think the DMV is completely useless because nearly everyone who's tried has passed the exams? would the roads be equally safe if nobody needed to take those exams?

this would ensure that anyone wishing to become a parent at least has the base knowledge. of course some people are going to break a rule or two but it's better than nothing. and there would still be a criminal background check.


i'm not completely sure if the psychological test would work, that was just a proposal. might just scrap the idea and leave it at the criminal check.


right. a simple test, during, say, the last 6 months of pregnancy she fails multiple times. and WHY would she fail? is she a child abuser? drug addict? too stupid to figure out that babies need to be fed multiple times a day? i certainly wouldn't want a mother like that raising ANY child, even her own.



i never mentioned forced abortions.

and again, if they fail such a test then they are bound to screw up in the future. why do driving examiners fail people who never signal properly on the exam?


so why so much fuss about a simple license to raise kids?



unfortunately, these laws can only react to a situation AFTER something's already gone wrong.

snipped a bunch of rambling that i didn't quite get. and i'll explain what a straw man is though: misrepresenting an opponent's views, then attacking that representation. i.e. saying that i am facist/support forced abortions/support forced tube tying. i never mentioned any of that stuff.


however, nowhere does it state in the constitution (as far as i'm aware) the right to raise children. i'm sure the right to conception isn't there either but i won't touch that one.

do people inherently have a right to drive? no. driving is a responsibility and they have to prove they have that responsibility by obtaining a license. there's no punishment in taking away their ability to drive because they didn't have a right to do so in the first place. i think the same should apply for raising a child.

Look, I see whee you're coming frm, but however great your intentions, this is a very bad idea.

you either let people do all the concieving they want or you snip, castrate, tube tie, or otherwise make people sterile.

Do you want the government to sterilize its citizens? I think that punishment would be worse than the "crime" of failing some test you made that expalins how YOU think THEY should raise THEIR kids.

If you don't want to sterilize your citizens, then they have the power to concieve. if they do that then there's going to be babies coming. you can either let those babies be born, or you can force a failing mother to abort it.

If you force the mother to abort it some would call that murder. i wouldn't call it murder, but I would call it absolutely terrible. I know a little bit about what an abortion is like for the prospective parnts and it's rough. The shame, the homornally induced depression. it's devastating. it's one thing for the government to allow people to make such a diffficult desicion...it's completely another to force it. especially on a regular basis.

you said you don't support forced abortions. so you'd let the baby be born. now oyu have a child, and no parents. I guess that child would get dumped into some state child care program. So the child is getting punished anyway--those child care facilities are not happy places either. sure maybe a few of those kids are doing better than they would've with their abusive parents, but I bet with your test quitre a few non-abusive and completely innocent people would fail and those kids would be unnecessarily punished.

but not only that, just becausea parent couldn't pass teh test (maybe they can't read) they now have to have their child taken from them...again they will be devastated...you act like this is perfectly acceptable. i dare you to tell a few new mothers that you think they should take a test to keep their kids and see how they react. I bet my reaction would be slight in comparision.

you can either make your test tough enough to e of some use or simple enough to let everyone through. i've been through this but either way this is a bad thing. if it's easy it's a huge waste of money...if it's tough you have eugenics issues, and all the issues i mention above...plus anyhting i haven't yet thought of because I'm still in shock.

Then you back off and say there should just be a criminal background check. so people that have committed a crime and have paid their dues to ociety, been determined to be fit for release are now no longer allowed to bear children? didn' they just spend years injail thinking aobut how terrible their crime was? if they were such a danger to society why are they being released back onto the streets? it's almost as if you don't want these people to try to rejoin normal society. if these criminals are so terrible they should have been given life sentences.

If the government knows better how to raise children than its citzens then why don't we just raise all children in government care facilities? we can give those surrogate parents years of training...they'd be the best parents ever....right? I mean they could undergo all kinds of testing and they could get four year degrees in child rearing. heck for kids it should be a MBA. wouldn't that be a good idea? Even parents that pass the tests might beat their kids...we must do all that is possible to avoid that! no this is a terrible idea and so is parentla licenses.

someone before you mentioned that a driver's license is a privledge not a right. they are correct. I would argue that's not how it SHOULD be but i would agree that's how it is. I also agree the two issues are not a fair comparison. in fact i should've avoided that comparison completely as it only makes this wacky idea seem more credible.

Anabananaka--you are right aobut that...human rights are completely invented. someone just one day made them up. sine no one can agree with them, lets just throw them out. we don't need them anyway. think of how much better the world would be if there were no rights at all!

come on don't take stands you know to be silly. i know our system isn't perfect, but there are some very basic things everyone should be entitled to do. and one of those things is to raise their child without governmental influence....now I grant if there's an incidence of abuse someone should step in...but assuming there will be abuse before it happens based on the results of some test is an overextention of govenrmental powers. you are innocent until proven guilty. taking someone's kid away because they answered b instead of c on their scantron? whomever that parent is, they haven't committed any crime other than failing a test. If you can't see past that point your purposefully avoiding looking there.

 

[Anakha1]

Anabananaka--you are right aobut that...human rights are completely invented. someone just one day made them up. sine no one can agree with them, lets just throw them out. we don't need them anyway. think of how much better the world would be if there were no rights at all!

come on don't take stands you know to be silly. i know our system isn't perfect, but there are some very basic things everyone should be entitled to do. and one of those things is to raise their child without governmental influence....now I grant if there's an incidence of abuse someone should step in...but assuming there will be abuse before it happens based on the results of some test is an overextention of govenrmental powers. you are innocent until proven guilty. taking someone's kid away because they answered b instead of c on their scantron? whomever that parent is, they haven't committed any crime other than failing a test. If you can't see past that point your purposefully avoiding looking there.

I never thought we should do away with human rights. I was merely playing devil's advocate to the people who keep saying that having kids is some inalienable human right. It's not. Never has, never will be. Rights have been... err... alienated... throughout history. That being said, it doesn't mean I think we should do away with them, but there is no such thing as an inalienable human right.

Anyways, I never advocated an arbitrary test. That's what some people have been advocating, but not I. I said that there should be a mandatory parenthood course to educate and which requires passing to show that they will not be a danger to their child and to ensure that they have some knowledge of children before they become responsible for another human life. It's to protect the child. The potential parent has no harm befall them if they don't have a kid, but the child can have a world of hurt against them if they get saddled with a parent who's too irresponsible to be one. Any new parent who takes their responsibilities seriously should be eager and willing to take such a course. And like I said before, there are many cases of guilty until proven innocent. We assume you're a crappy driver until you prove otherwise and thus don't let you drive a car until licensed. I can kill lots of people with a car if I don't know what I'm doing just as I can destroy my child's life if I don't know how to be a good parent or if I'm not suited for the job.

I really don't think many people realize how big a responsibility parenthood is. You don't have a right to have a child. You don't own that child and it's not yours to have regardless of its wellbeing in your hands. It's a bloody priviledge and one that requires a lot of knowledge and the utmost care in ensuring that child is not born to parents who have no business being around children.

We go through extreme measures to ensure that convicted child molestors and abusers can't volunteer or get a job working around kids, or even go to parks and other places where kids frequent. Yet these same people can have their own kids to abuse and attack until their heart's content and people call it a right. Do I think that the safety of these kids from this monority of parents is worth the testing of all potential parents to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen? Absolutely. The parents who are actually concerned with their child's wellbeing have nothing to fear. But when in doubt the child comes first, even if it's not yours.

 

[Yaboosh]

So procreation is a privilege. Who grants this privilege? You honestly believe that the government should have the right to tell you or I that we are not suitable for child care? If the government EVER told me that I was not allowed to procreate because I was not as good as them, and the kids I would produce are not "good enough" to live in "their" society, I would go ballistic. Equating some kind of "guilty before proven innocence" in licensing drivers to licensing parents is absurd. A government telling people whether or not they can raise a child is reaching too far into the realm of "get the **** out of my business you rat bastards."

 

[Madness]

I am for the idea in general, but it will be impossible in reality.
You cant stop people from having sex, and babies. This will cause many cases of "illegal" children. What will be done with them?
Who will raise these children? Will they be educated?
Seems like they wil suffer more than they would in an abusive family (then again, perhaps not, but both cases are horrible).

Perhaps some basic course in parentship should be forced on every new parents, something that can educate them in the basics. Im sure many new parents dont even know the basic things essential for raising a child.

 

[Johnny]

saying an immigrant cannot have a child, is absurd. Were trying to improve their lives, not let someone play hitler.

My post wasnt a suggestion on what should be done it was an insight in how it would start out and then end up.


Personaly Im against any breeding regulations saimed at people.

Its not like there would be any real way to enforce it.

Are police suppose to walk up to pregnant women on the street and ask them to present thier breeding liscence and if they cant show one then they get an instant abortion with a baton to the stomach mayby?

If a woman without a breeding liscence has a baby then what?

Do they kill it?

What if a woman has a 10 year old kid that turns out she never had a breeding liscence for?

Do they put the kid to "sleep"?

Should there be some age limit for how old the kid should be to avoid geting killed?

Then some woman has a child and one day before the time limit they find out and kill it then there will be demonstrations and riots even.

What a mess it would be.