View Poll Results: Should parenting require a license or parenting courses?

Voters
310. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, parenting should require both a license and mandatory parenting courses.

    94 30.32%
  • Yes, parenting courses only.

    54 17.42%
  • Yes, license only.

    16 5.16%
  • No to either.

    137 44.19%
  • No opinion

    9 2.90%
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    I also think adoption is a social moral obligation.

    Not everyone needs to adopt, but there are SO MANY children worldwide that need a home that it has become obvious that we are failing at our moral obligation, and it is not self-righteous to say that. We should take care of our own, we are all members of the human race.

    That being said, adoption processes need to become easier--and cheaper--in order to incentivize adoption; and post-adoption support needs to be given to parents who adopt children with special needs, because those children are the most difficult to adopt out.
    It's self-righteous to say that parents who choose to have their own biological children are selfish and "playing god," when they have a "moral obligation" to adopt. That's what the whole discussion was about. Do you disagree with this sentiment? I understand that adoption is a problem, and part of the solution would be to make the adoption process easier, but looking down on people who have children because they are not fulfilling what you deem to be that individuals moral obligation is unreasonable.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
    It's self-righteous to say that parents who choose to have their own biological children are selfish and "playing god," when they have a "moral obligation" to adopt. That's what the whole discussion was about. Do you disagree with this sentiment? I understand that adoption is a problem, and part of the solution would be to make the adoption process easier, but looking down on people who have children because they are not fulfilling what you deem to be that individuals moral obligation is unreasonable.
    If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption due to cost or other limitations, no I do not think that is selfish.
    If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption simply because they want to have a little mini-me, that is in questionable moral ground if the majority of couples choose this route, considering the sheer amount of children who need a home.
    If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption simply because they want to have a little mini-me AND they knowingly have poor genetics that have a high likelihood of producing offspring *severe* psychological/physiological issues (things like down syndrome or more serious inherited issues), then that couple is in my opinion acting selfishly.

  3. #223
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
    snip
    Ugh, this thread was bumped. I thought I could just let it sit. I have no interest in discussing this with you three days in a row. You're insulting, you attach different meanings to the things I say, and you repeat yourself over and over as if somehow your points are more valid if you do so. Unlike some people who use this forum, coming back night after night to argue about the same thing is not something I enjoy.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption due to cost or other limitations, no I do not think that is selfish.
    If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption simply because they want to have a little mini-me, that is in questionable moral ground if the majority of couples choose this route, considering the sheer amount of children who need a home.
    If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption simply because they want to have a little mini-me AND they knowingly have poor genetics that have a high likelihood of producing offspring *severe* psychological/physiological issues (things like down syndrome or more serious inherited issues), then that couple is in my opinion acting selfishly.
    You bring up scenarios here and vaguely define the moral grounds for each, which I have no problem with, but it sounds like you agree with the fact that calling all parents "selfish and playing god" for having biological children without knowing any aspect of their background, and also arguing parents "should not have the right to procreate," is unreasonable.

  5. #225
    The Lightbringer Uzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Moravia
    Posts
    3,046
    Well there are certainly reasons for it, and it would help us in a lot of ways, but no. It's too "Orwellian" to do this.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Letmesleep View Post
    Ugh, this thread was bumped. I thought I could just let it sit. I have no interest in discussing this with you three days in a row. You're insulting, you attach different meanings to the things I say, and you repeat yourself over and over as if somehow your points are more valid if you do so. Unlike some people who use this forum, coming back night after night to argue about the same thing is not something I enjoy.
    Insults go both ways. Maybe you don't mean what you say, as I have straight up quoted you and responded to your quotes. All I was asking is for you to at least be reasonable in your discussion. Most responsible people who choose to have children should not have to sit around and listen to people calling them "selfish and playing god," and that they "should not have the right to procreate." That's oppressive language that should be addressed.

    People can decide if my points are valid, and no one forces you to respond "night after night" if it's not something you enjoy.

  7. #227
    The fact that you actually brought this up is... I'm speechless

  8. #228
    The Lightbringer slime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    USA PA
    Posts
    3,843
    I have never been more for and against something all at the same time.

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
    You bring up scenarios here and vaguely define the moral grounds for each, which I have no problem with, but it sounds like you agree with the fact that calling all parents "selfish and playing god" for having biological children without knowing any aspect of their background, and also arguing parents "should not have the right to procreate," is unreasonable.
    I do not expect everyone to know every aspect of their genetic background because such testing is not freely available (although in the U.S., the cost can range from $100-$2000 depending on the complexity of the tests, still potentially expensive depending on your insurance coverage, but still far cheaper than the enormous cost of hospital bills for children with severe disorders).

    Playing god...every living thing on earth "plays God" to some extent when they choose to reproduce, I don't really see a problem with this as long as we are doing a reasonable job of taking care of ourselves and the earth.

  10. #230
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Broloth View Post
    quote 4. Regulation of who can or cannot parent would potentially be extremely difficult to do and can be very expensive, and may be seen by some as invading upon our basic human rights. "e
    Yeah, "require" by whom? Federal government? State government? No, and no.

    So I believe parenting classes are a good thing, and that every parent should seek out training and education on their own. 100000% yes. Should it be mandated in any way? 1000000% no.

  11. #231
    Elemental Lord Haven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia
    Posts
    8,418
    Hell yes. Humans breed like fucking rabbits, the population has grown a hundred times through just the last century and continues to grow exponentially, while most of human being are useless pieces of shit, full of swag or other bullshit. Driving requires a license, applying to a university requires a test, handling a gun requires checks and licenses, but the most important thing there is, procreation and parenting, requires to just stick a dick into a vagina? Brilliant. Although I can see the logic behind "breed more consumers" or "produce more worker bees".
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Metzenphrenia. As defined in the DSM: "To be so badly written, that it drives the character into insanity." It's symptoms are similar to schizophrenia but even crazier.
    "There are no answers, only choices" - Solaris.

  12. #232
    Over 9000! Winter Blossom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    "Winter is coming"
    Posts
    9,793
    No. Parenting is something that you learn as you go. No "course" can fully grasp what being a parent means and what it requires of you. Every child is different and every problem/situation is different.

  13. #233
    The Lightbringer slime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    USA PA
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Management View Post
    Some people shouldn't have kids.
    And without a doubt they will be the ones that do have kids.

    Idiocracy anyone?

  14. #234
    Fluffy Kitten Callei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground
    Posts
    10,312
    I think parenting courses should be encouraged, but not required. Have the doctor who confirms pregnancy offer pamphlets and maybe offer to get the expecting parent(s) in touch with a seminar or something, but leave the ultimate decision up to the parent(s) in question. If they turn out to be poor parents (as in, abusive or neglectful), that's what Child Services is for (and their track record is another subject entirely, be it good or ill). I've seen some of the most-unexpected people turn into the best parents, and people I was sure would be phenomenal parents turn out to be less than desirable parents. I would never for a second think I have the right to decide who can or cannot breed and be a parent, and can't fathom anyone else who could lay claim to that right where it lays on the ground until they demonstrate poor parenting. Innocent until proven guilty, after all, is supposedly the US's credo.

    Awesome sig by Elyaan is awesome.

  15. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by slime View Post
    And without a doubt they will be the ones that do have kids.

    Idiocracy anyone?
    Linked earlier in the thread. Film's not very good but the message is a scary one...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •