Should parenting require a license or parenting courses?

[Letmesleep]

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.

[Spoiler]

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.

[Spoiler]

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.

[Shadowsz]

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

[slime]

I have never been more for and against something all at the same time.

[Celista]

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.

[Porcell]

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.

[Haven]

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".

[slime]

Some people shouldn't have kids.

And without a doubt they will be the ones that do have kids.

Idiocracy anyone?

[Thage]

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.

[Celista]

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...