A Parenting License as a preventive Measure ahould be required

[Moxie123]

No one with any brains would claim that rules guarantee 100% compliance!

Yet the legislature writes thousands upon thousands of pages of code that you seem to have given your allegiance.

I don't need to read anything to know that if you are ignorant of the rules of the road you will either seriously harm yourself or someone else.

Not necessarily. If it's 2AM and I'm sitting at a red light in the middle of East Bumble where I can clearly see nothing coming for miles, I can pass though that light and not endanger anyone.

Calling such a government requirement babysitting is just plain silly.

Yet that is exactly what government does.

I am not saying that 100% of driver accidents are caused by ignorance of rules.
OBVIOUSLY there are drive accidents caused by intoxication, intention, or just plain daredevil stupidity. However, the situation would be far worse if no knowledge of the rules were required to be legally out on the road. That's why when you are pulled over, they immediately demand to see your license.

Is that right!

I was a daredevil driver who would hydroplane in thunderstorms at 95 mph on the interstate between NY and NJ. I knew the rules but didn't care. Never killed nor maimed anyone though. But that doesn't diminish my need to know that I was in violation of the speed limit-does it?

Did the Mr. Speed Limit sustain harm, injury or loss by your not harming anyone?

 

[Radrook]

Rules don't protect you sane behavior does, if you have a death wish all the rules in the world won't stop you.

I never claimed nor suggested that Rules cure pathological, psychological disorders. LOL!

BTW
If you are boxing and someone kept breaking the rules by punching you below the belt I'm sure you would insist that rules do matter.

But ummmm, they don't stop the punching below the belt?

Of course not!

But they reduce the incidence because of the consequences of punching below the belt.
You know, like being disqualified and losing the fight.
In short, rules are prophylactic because their consequences encourage compliance.

But ummmum, thay don't do that all the time.


But they are meant to REDUCE the incidences.


Yeah but--ummmm they don't do that all the time!


LOL!


YIKES!

 

[Kersh]

One question that I don't think was answered: what will happen to the child of unlicensed parents? Abortion or infanticide? Foster care or adoption? How is this a better alternative to being raised by unlcensed parents?

 

[Radrook]

One question that I don't think was answered: what will happen to the child of unlicensed parents? Abortion or infanticide? Foster care or adoption? How is this a better alternative to being raised by unlcensed parents?

How is infanticide or abortion better alternatives to unlicensed parents? I never proposed those as better alternatives.

 

[Kersh]

How is infanticide or abortion better alternatives to unlicensed parents? I never proposed those as better alternatives.

What alternative are you proposing? In your scenario, if an unlicensed couple or person has a child, what happens to the child? Is he or she placed for adoption to a licenced person or couple? Do we mandate contraception for unlicensed women? Do you think either of these are viable options?

 

[Radrook]

What alternative are you proposing? In your scenario, if an unlicensed couple or person has a child, what happens to the child? Is he or she placed for adoption to a licenced person or couple? Do we mandate contraception for unlicensed women? Do you think either of these are viable options?

What I envision is a world where all high school graduates, better yet, those who pass grammar school have been provided with the essential knowledge of how to parent responsibly. So in such a world that excuse of ignorance of proper parenting will have been eliminated. Hope that clears up the confusion.

Will there be those who ignore the rules of proper parenting? Of course. Should those who choose to remain ignorant of the rules of proper parenting be granted official permission to raise victims? IMPO? No! Do humans have a right to raise victims of improper parenting? IMHO? No!

Victims of improper parenting wind up in prisons, on death row, as tyrants, and a host of other ways which degrade human society. So why should it be condoned?

 

[Kersh]

What I envision is a world where all high school graduates, better yet, those who pass grammar school have been provided with the essential knowledge of how to parent responsibly. So in such a world that excuse of ignorance of proper parenting will have been eliminated. Hope that clears up the confusion.

Will there be those who ignore the rules of proper parenting? Of course. Should those who choose to remain ignorant of the rules of proper parenting be granted official permission to raise victims? IMPO? No! Do humans have a right to raise victims of improper parenting? IMHO? No!

So, in your proposed society a parenting license would come as a byproduct if high school graduation? What of high school dropouts who have children? Should the children be taken from them?

 

[Radrook]

So, in your proposed society a parenting license would come as a byproduct if high school graduation? What of high school dropouts who have children? Should the children be taken from them?

That scenario goes beyond the scope of what the proposed law is intended to do-diminish the raising of kids by unqualified parents.
However, if it does occur then some negative sanction which discourages such behavior should be put into place. In China the government discourages having more than one child via economic sanctions and it has worked. Common stimulus response psychology. The sanctions could be gradually lifted as the parents gain the required education which will ultimately result in their licensing. In the meantime strict supervision on what exactly they are doing to their kids should be instituted and corrective measures via counselling should be taken accordingly in order to assure that no permanent physical or psychological damage is done..

 

[Kersh]

That scenario goes beyond the scope of what the proposed law is intended to do-diminish the raising of kids by unqualified parents.
However, if it does occur then some negative sanction which discourages such behavior should be put into place. In China the government discourages having more than one child via economic sanctions and it has worked. Common stimulus response psychology. The sanctions could be gradually lifted as the parents gain the required education which will ultimately result in their licensing. In the meantime strict supervision on what exactly they are doing to their kids should be instituted and corrective measures via counselling should be taken accordingly in order to assure that no permanent physical or psychological damage is done..

China is not exactly my idea of a government worth emulating.

What you're describing sounds horribly totalitarian to me. No thanks!

 

[Radrook]

China is not exactly my idea of a government worth emulating.

What you're describing sounds horribly totalitarian to me. No thanks!

I am not proposing a full scaled emulation of Communist China. LOL!
If teaching people how to properly raise kids and assisting them to do so is totalitarian, then I guess I am a totalitarian in that area.

BTW

After I was suddenly yanked away from the woman I considered my real mom, my aunt, I was expected to immediately accept my real mother-who suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
I found this extremely difficult. Since she as making no headway via gifts of toys, my father volunteered his help and promised her results. Told her to leave the darkened room and began suddenly talking in a low threatening voice.


I was told by my father that if I did not IMMEDIATELY shift my love for the woman I had come to believe was my mother but wasn't since she was my aunt-whom my parents had entrusted me to for approx. three years or more since my birth, he and my real mother would abandon me in in the city of New York and then what was I going to do?

He pointed out the windowto the dark deserted streets of the city while talking. Faced with that ultimatum I suffered a full night of agonizing nightmares and extreme emotional distress trying to divest myself of the love I had for the woman I considered my real mom and had to literally force myself to direct that love toward the woman whom I did not consider my real mother in order to avoid I winding up in the street as he-the man I had viewed as my friend and father had suddenly threatened. I was approx. three and a half years old. I felt like something precious had permanently died in me which I would never be able to fully recover.

Totalitarian in relation to who should be allowed to raise kids? You bet!

 

[Kersh]

I am not proposing a full scaled emulation of Communist China. LOL!
If teaching people how to properly raise kids and assisting them to do so is totalitarian, then I guess I am a totalitarian in that area.

Teaching people to raise children is not totalitarian. Punishing then for not completing the class csn be.

 

[Radrook]

Teaching people to raise children is not totalitarian. Punishing then for not completing the class csn be.

Well, I guesss we differ in opinions.

 

[Kersh]

Well, I guesss we differ in opinions.

I suppose we do.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Teaching people to raise children is not totalitarian. Punishing then for not completing the class csn be.

The thing is, there are parenting classes. And in many States if not all, DCFS can through its action and by order of the court demand that which is deemed an unfit parent(s) take parenting classes in order to get their children back.

And for expectant mothers or family, there are parenting classes available so they can prepare their life and themselves for that transition into parenting a precious newborn .

Personally, I think parents who have been convicted of mutilating their child through abuse, God forbid, killing their child/children, should be sterilized prior to entering prison. So that they never give life to a future victim again.

In the news here just recently a three month old precious little one was beaten to death! A woman had left the newborn with her boyfriend. And the boyfriend just couldn't stand the child's behavior so he beat them to death to stop it.
God rest the soul.
Who even conceives of raising their hand to a newborn?

Just because the reproductive organs work doesn't mean they should be used for that purpose.

 

[Kersh]

The thing is, there are parenting classes. And in many States if not all, DCFS can through its action and by order of the court demand that which is deemed an unfit parent(s) take parenting classes in order to get their children back.

And for expectant mothers or family, there are parenting classes available so they can prepare their life and themselves for that transition into parenting a precious newborn .

Personally, I think parents who have been convicted of mutilating their child through abuse, God forbid, killing their child/children, should be sterilized prior to entering prison. So that they never give life to a future victim again.

In the news here just recently a three month old precious little one was beaten to death! A woman had left the newborn with her boyfriend. And the boyfriend just couldn't stand the child's behavior so he beat them to death to stop it.
God rest the soul.
Who even conceives of raising their hand to a newborn?

Just because the reproductive organs work doesn't mean they should be used for that purpose.

There is a difference between a person being required to take a class because their conduct has demonstrated that it is needed and requiring everyone to take the class in order to exercise a fundamental liberty. And, as it stands now, at least in my State, the child protection system is itself horribly abusive to lower income and minority parents. I've seen too many cases of children ripped from their families in the name of preventing abuse, for the purpose of providing middle class couples an opportunity to adopt. I think most people would be surprised what CPS will call "abuse" or "neglect" when they want to remove a child. Sure, there are very real cases where government intervetion is needed. But, government also often does more harm than good in child "protection".

 

[Radrook]

There is a difference between a person being required to take a class because their conduct has demonstrated that it is needed and requiring everyone to take the class in order to exercise a fundamental liberty. And, as it stands now, at least in my State, the child protection system is itself horribly abusive to lower income and minority parents. I've seen too many cases of children ripped from their families in the name of preventing abuse, for the purpose of providing middle class couples an opportunity to adopt. I think most people would be surprised what CPS will call "abuse" or "neglect" when they want to remove a child. Sure, there are very real cases where government intervetion is needed. But, government also often does more harm than good in child "protection".

Do you have statistical evidence to support the claim that government intervention in child abuse cases usually does more harm than good?

 

[Radrook]

''

The thing is, there are parenting classes. And in many States if not all, DCFS can through its action and by order of the court demand that which is deemed an unfit parent(s) take parenting classes in order to get their children back.

And for expectant mothers or family, there are parenting classes available so they can prepare their life and themselves for that transition into parenting a precious newborn .

Personally, I think parents who have been convicted of mutilating their child through abuse, God forbid, killing their child/children, should be sterilized prior to entering prison. So that they never give life to a future victim again.

In the news here just recently a three month old precious little one was beaten to death! A woman had left the newborn with her boyfriend. And the boyfriend just couldn't stand the child's behavior so he beat them to death to stop it.
God rest the soul.
Who even conceives of raising their hand to a newborn?

Just because the reproductive organs work doesn't mean they should be used for that purpose.

Very well said! Just because we possess sexual reproductive organs doesn't mean that we have a right to reproduce regardless of our ability to raise a child. A child's life is a very precious thing which should never be entrusted to just anyone. Some people have kids for reasons which go far beyond all logic and common sense. If no one stands up for these helpless victims of circumstances then then they will be at the mercy of adults who are for all practical purposes their worse enemies. I personally would have appreciated being removed from my parents' frenetic, psychologically-abusive vicinity for the remainder of my childhood.

 

[Kersh]

Do you have statistical evidence to support the claim that government intervention in child abuse cases usually does more harm than good?

Alas, I do not. I work alongside parents, kids, and CPS workers, representing both children and parents in the system. My statement was based on my own observations, where children are routinely removed from homes for no other reason than that the house is messy and where DHHS workers will say behind closed doors that they have every intention of placing the child for adoption.

For the record, I made no claim that intervention "usually does more harm than good". What I did state is that instances of goverment overstepping its bounds on the name of child protection is more common than it should be. I readily admit that there are many cases where intervention is necessary, but the power (like all power) is abused in many cases.

I

 

[Radrook]

Alas, I do not. I work alongside parents, kids, and CPS workers, representing both children and parents in the system. My statement was based on my own observations, where children are routinely removed from homes for no other reason than that the house is messy and where DHHS workers will say behind closed doors that they have every intention of placing the child for adoption.

For the record, I made no claim that intervention "usually does more harm than good". What I did state is that instances of goverment overstepping its bounds on the name of child protection is more common than it should be. I readily admit that there are many cases where intervention is necessary, but the power (like all power) is abused in many cases.

I

Well, abuse of any system meant to benefit mankind will exist as long we live in a world temporarily governed by Satan.
That however doesn't justify throwing up our hands and leaving the innocent and helpless to fend for themselves. Why? Because they can't fend for themselves and our duty, both as human beings and Christians, is to lend them a helping hand to the best of our ability.

Ephesians 6: 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

 

[Kersh]

Well, abuse of any system meant to benefit mankind will exist as long we live in a world temporarily governed by Satan.
That however doesn't justify throwing up our hands and leaving the innocent and helpless to fend for themselves. Why? Because they can't fend for themselves and our duty, both as human beings and Christians, is to lend them a helping hand to the best of our ability.

Ephesians 6: 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

DI'd I say anything about throwing up our hands and leaving the innocent to fend for themselves? I would argue, however, when we see a modest amount of government power resulting in a significant abuse of that power, it would be unwise to cede even more power to government at the expense of fundamental liberties.