should people be required to have a licence to have children?

Question

people have to have a licence to drive, and a licence to get married. We have drivers' ed in high school, why not parents' ed?

parenthood is arguably more important than any of the many things we have to get licences for.
shouldn't prospective parents be required to understand what they're getting into - at least as well as as prospective drivers? should there be training? certification?

and, if you think so, what skills could be verified that way?

Answer 1

great discussion. I'm gonna argue pro- by addresssing some of the concerns above.

1) teen pregnancy in US has gotten a lot of attention and dropped radically (esp among African Americans, BTW) throughout the 90s to its *lowest rate in recorded history* and still receding. There are now more first-time-births to Moms 35-39 than to those under 20. (source: CDC's NCHS stats)

2) drivers ed doesn't prevent *all* abuse but it demonstrably cuts down accidents (or the capitalist reptiles running insurance cos would never be giving us cheaper rates for it!). IE even tho it covers only the basics, run by bureocracy, taught by idiots and largely ignored, it saves lives every year. If nothing else, its existence has made more people of think of driving as a *skill*, rather than a reflex.
Institutional message change has also made a big dent in abuse. Rape is down more than 2/3 since 1973. (source: U.S. Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey -a reliable anonymous survey that records more than twice the number reported to police)

3) yes, the Usual Suspects would have a great time debating what the criteria should be, and we'd end up with a watered-down, carefully-limited basics-only crash course, as exciting as a wet blanket. This would be a bad thing? lots of good skills are politics-neutral.
even if we only had the public debate and never got any legislation, would this not still succeed in getting people to think about it a lot more?

4) enforcement can be effective (judges are already including 5-year-contraceptive implants in some cases now), need not be draconian. An unlicenced parent might be put on a "watch list" for CPS (could be like the IRS, where they audit if they think you're up to something. a powerful motivator), or be considered a "first strike" leading to quicker action in cases of reported child abuse, or maybe just targetted for gov't grants for remedial courses. *lots* of options. more would come from healthy debate.

just because one solution can't solve *all* the problems doesn't mean it it isn't helpful or worthwhile.

Answer 2

I agree with you 100%. But theres a problem. Some people who dont have drivers licenses still drive so some people who wouldnt have "parenting" licenses would still become parents. What do we do then? Take away their kid? I do agree that more people should take some classes or something-maybe that way the percentage of abused or beaten children would go down. It's not very practical though. Kids are stil going to have kids, people would still get pregnant even without a "license". Maybe it could work this way-people who dont currently have a license can still have the kid and keep it to as long as they prove to be fit parents. If they prove to be unfit parents...well the only right thing to do in a case like that is to take the child away from those parents.

Answer 3

Being a parent--or having children--is a basic human right, and it's a 100% biological, natural process--unlike driving a car, getting married, or any other thing for which people need licences.

The government should not attempt to regulate childbearing. How would you enforce it anyway? What if someone refused to comply with the license's standards? You'd have to mandate abortions, like China. It would never work.

Answer 4

Think about what you suggested and then consider this.

Even though you have to have a marriage license to get married, how many people end up beating their spouses, cheating on them, killing them, or leaving them to care for their children along? The piece of paper didn't change the type of spouse they were.

Even though you have to have a drivers license to drive a car, how many people can't change a tire even though they were taught that in drivers ed, how many were taught to obey the speed limit yet speed every time they get in a car, and how many knowingly disobey the things they were taught in drivers ed?

What about a medical license? How many doctors have commited malpractice even though they have a license to practice medicine?

Even if there was a license to be a parent, how many do you think would throw out all that they learned as soon as they were handed that license, and do it their own way anyways?

Good idea, but it wouldn't ever work.

Answer 5

Actually, there are more and more high schools that are offering classes that involve parenting.. The HS kids at some point in the year have to bring home a "baby" that is programmed to wakeup, wet itself, cry, have to be fed.... if any of these things are ignored the "baby" will die. They have the baby for a week.. All the baby's care is up to them.

The goal of the test program was to reduce teen pregnancy.

But to answer your original question.... YES.. a licensing program should be in place to have children. Unfortunately... it would never fly with the ACLU.

Answer 6

You would think so now of days. Really though there is no hand book that comes with your child and like everybody else in this world that child is an individual. Therefore each one requires different methods that you have to incorporate in the raising of that particular individual. Unfortunately the natural instinct that parents use to have, that kicked in when a child was born has seemed to become more diminished over the years.

Answer 7

I think they should, but it would never go over. Too much of childrearing is a matter of culture and personal belief, and people would get REAL edgy about the government saying how they can and can't raise their kids. Even if people were simply required to take regular old parenting classes (which every parent should), people would yell and scream about it being intrusive.
A huge part of the problem is people think that parenting is instinctive, so they don't need anyone to tell them how to do it. Fact is, it isn't.

Answer 8

No. Allowing people to have children who really shouldn't is just part of the price we have to pay for the freedom we have to choose to have children ourselves. I think making parenting resources more readily available and advertising the fact that they are available would really help, even if not going to the extent of actually making parenting classes mandatory. But I don't think it's a good idea to restrict who is actually allowed to have children, as tempting as it sounds to try to do so.

Answer 9

No No and No!! Oh please you see how sanctimonious some people are on here plz dont give them more ammunition to use against us just ordinary parents who's kids are still in diapers at the unheard of age of 18 months or who has a child who still uses a bottle at 15 months. Puh leeze they already have little geniuses at their house dont give them a platform to make us feel even worse.

Answer 10

Sorry kiddo, this is a scary thought. This is not realistic. People can take all the "classes" they want, but it still won't prepare you like the real thing. Besides, who is to decide what is "good" parenting, or who would have the "right" to have kids? Never going to happen, I hope!