Why do you need a license to trim someone's hair but no license or training is required to have kids?

Question

and be responsible for another person's life, upbringing and future?

Tracey: The majority of "unplanned" translates into unprotected or irresponsible protection. "Accidents" do occur but not too often when you take the responsible measures of responsible protection. Those who feel strongly about not getting pregnant, rarely do.

Genx: When you bring a child into this world, you're not making a decision about yourself, you're making a decisions about another human beings life.

Chilling: I support people running their own lives as long as they are not negatively affecting others. When you can't raise a child and it grows up with all kinds of issues, suffering the consequences of an incompetent set of parents, or becomes a burden to society, I believe it crosses the boundaries of a "private matter."

If reproductive rights translate into automatic rights to abusive parents whose children end up on the streets, moving from foster home to foster home, get sexually molested, become suicidal or seek out to strangers for affection and find themselves in abusive relationships---maybe I do not support such rights---I would call it more of a privilege to become responsible of another person's life. You should only do it, if qualified. You don't automatically own the right.

Mike T: You're actually taking time to give me credit for something? Let me record this moment LOL

Players: I don't have the answers, I just have the questions :)

But just because we don't have a solution, doesn't mean we should ignore the problem. I don't see why we need to abandon the question because we can't find an answer, if anything we need to give it more attention for more answers.

Gnu: I don't care how good you are, nobody is touching my hair without a license LOL

Answer 1

Haha, this is close to the line uttered by Keanu Reeve's character in the film "Parenthood":

"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."

(Interestingly, Susan Faludi accused this film of being part of the anti-feminist "backlash" in her book by that title, but she failed to mention this quote... for some reason)

To a couple of previous posters - I really doubt that Lioness is advocating some totalitarian regime whereby one has to prove one's parental worthiness in advance. I think, like Tod (Keanu Reeves), she's simply bemoaning the fact that so many people are having children when they are incapable of looking after them.

We obviously need *much* better sex education in America and the United Kingdom (our ridiculous rates of teenage pregnancy compared to "liberal" countries is good evidence for this) - this is one thing that the government CAN and SHOULD do. This should probably also entail "parental" education - i.e making young people aware of what being a parent *really* means (I can't remember the stat, but a surprising amount of parents admitted that they wish they'd never had children). Then of course there is foster care, which is a minefield I don't want to cross. These kinds of government "interference" are a long, long way away from "Nazism".

Edit: I find it hard to comprehend why people can't properly READ and UNDERSTAND what someone else is saying... or not saying...

Answer 2

The problem is, the current system requires immigration to increase population growth to sustain the economy. If we limited who had children, and most people who have children probably shouldn't, we'd just have to compensate with more immigration. That would come with its own array of issues. (And as most of those immigrants wouldn't be allowed to have kids, we'd need a constant influx of new ones...) If population decline was actually something desirable (which it is from an environmental standpoint) then it would be a very good idea, in fact regulating who has children is probably the ONLY humane strategy to reduce population. Regarding fears of Nazi-esque population control, it really doesn't matter from an objective standpoint. The future population would be different because of the laws, but populations change all the time anyways for whatever reason. So it really doesn't matter. The idea that reproduction is a fundamental right is embedded in our current social system but there isn't really anything fundamental about any right, and not all systems have the same view.

Answer 3

Because our conception of human rights is such that certain fundamental decisions are deemed to be private matters in which the government's role should be kept to a minimum. The presumption of governmental approval involved in licensing would be a grotesque extension of the law into people's personal lives and would open the door to huge abuses.

Also, you can trim someone's hair without a license. I trim my own, my mother's, and some of my friends, and I am quite good at it. I cannot CHARGE people to do so however.

EDIT

Oh I wouldn't ask.

Unless you're into a short, precisely tapered or layered style, I wouldn't offer to cut your hair. But if you want a a high and tight, a mohawk, a pompadour, a fade, a classic businessman's cut, or a textured, piece-y bob (my mom's choice), you'll get plenty of compliments!

Answer 4

I know what you mean! You have to have a license to cut hair, drive a car, fly a plane, etc, but NO license or certification to raise children--which is more important than these other things because you are shaping someone else's life! I have always thought that those who are wanting kids should be required to go through a long parenting course, or two. Maybe make it like a regular college course but make it last longer, maybe a couple of months or so. I have seen and heard of so much abuse out there of children, especially lately. I believe that these courses for parenting may help parents to realize what they should and should not be doing, that they cannot treat children those horrible ways and get away with it. Plus, raising children is a lot of common sense. Where is people's common sense when raising their children? Or do they even have any to begin with?

I could go on and on about this. It is a subject that really gets to me, especially since I saw my stepkids so badly abused by their mom and stepdad for so many years, and there was nothing I could do since they would blame my ex-husband for all of it. Thank goodness the kids are grown and married now.

Answer 5

I think they only reason why not is because it would be unenforceable, unless we want to take a tip from Chinese communism. Not a step anybody would be comfortable with.

I fully, fully, agree that responsible people who do not want a child don't have any, since that is the case with me. Combine any two methods of birth control and you get (statistically speaking) better than 100% effectiveness, however I must say that I've rarely used more than one method at a time.

But I shrink from the idea of the government trying to get too tightly involved in my family. That means, when I have my (possibly forever hypothetical) children, I get to raise them as I see fit. That means that Jethro in the trailer park down the street gets the same option. Lot's of people think I would be a great parent, but that doesn't mean that I can tell him how to raise his kids.

In the end, the survival traits beat all. Losers find their level on their own, always. Have faith.

EDIT: Your doctor can get you in touch with planned parenthood, which does just what you say, from teaching you how to nutritionally prepare your body for pregnancy on down, as well as some basic child psychology. It's probably not any more effective than any other government program, but it exists.

Answer 6

sh!t that's a good one; you should start a petition or something, I would sign it in a heart-beat.

Answer 7

Because if you are cutting people's hair, you are rendering a service, which is taxable, and must have a governing body. Having children is not a rendered service. Additionally, requiring people to "apply" to have children, very quickly leads to an Orwellian situation where the government determines who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. While you may find some troglodytes you know or have read about should not have children, it is still an excellent right we have. Imagine if you lived in a society that restricted wether or not people could procreate, or forced sterilizations/abortions/infanticide? It would be much like China is today. The lesser of both evils is having a handful of parents that haven't the slightest clue how to raise children, rather than having hundreds of millions of people's right to have families be controlled and repressed.

Answer 8

It is a no win situation. While I think we are already over taxed and over service charged, your suggestion has merit.

A license means nothing though. People get marriage licences and look how well that works.

How about 'until you've taken this parenting course, you cannot receive benefits from the government or child support etc.'

This still does not solve the problem though. Just because you take the course doesn't mean you listen, understand or apply the lessons. Can we spay and neuter irresponsible people? That would still not solve our problem.

I agree that if you really did not want to have kids, you would protect yourself accordingly and I also agree that there are very few accidents among these people.

Answer 9

You can't be serious.

Cutting hair is in no way, shape, or form comparable to having offspring.

Having offspring is a natural part of life & naturally what we are driven to & supposed to do. Granted, there's some people that are faulty parents, but why penalise those who aren't?

If the government were given this kind of control, do you not realise what this would do? Give them an inch in our personal affairs, and they won't be satisfied with that. It'll keep perpetuating.

If anything, the only thing that should be changed is the way bad parents are handled. Those that have had children taken away from them or that have had to have the Children's Aid step in due to bad parenting should be controlled further.

Answer 10

...because this is not Nazi Germany. You do not get to control my reproductive choices, sorry.

Who would you have deciding who gets to breed and who doesn't? What sort of parenting classes would be required? Attachment parenting? Scheduled parenting? Cry-it-Out or the Family Bed? Wouldn't those decisions mean that someone is deciding which parenting techniques are right and which are wrong?

If single parenting is shown to be harmful to children, should it be illegal? We could require shotgun weddings. How about working full time in a factory while pregnant? That could lead to miscarriage. She should be fired! Gee, people sure make a lot of decisions that we could just make for them, and everyone would be better off. (sarcasm)

EDIT: Yes, I DO actually have the right to bodily integrity. I'm sorry that you wish I didn't. I wouldn't dream of forcibly sterilizing YOU. That isn't a privledge - it's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

EDIT: So you define the "problem" as "people making choice that I don't agree with", is that correct? YOU don't think they should be allowed to be parents, and you want that opinion made into law? Isn't that sort of arrogant?