Parenting

swissmiss04 · #1 03-31-2003, 01:49 PM

Some friends and I were discussing the dumb things people do to kill or maim themselves or others (accidentally). I made the comment that if you have to be licensed to drive, get married, practice medicine that you should be required to take a parent licensing test before the birth of your child. I mean doctors and nurses are licensed because they have the lives of others in their hands. Parents certainly have their children's lives in their hands. One of my friends thought it was way harsh. Here's how it would work:
Upon discovering you are pregnant you should attend a weekly session of about 2 hours (at your scheduled convenience) along w/ other expectant parents. The sessions would be conducted by nurses, social workers, educators, etc. They would focus on things like discipline, basic care, infant/child health, education, and maybe even dealing w/ disabilities. After 3 months, the parent(s) would have to take a test on material consisting of written questions, demonstration of basic things like diapering, and an interview w/ a social worker or psychologist. If they pass, then great. If not, they need to repeat the class. If they still don't pass, then after the birth of the child a nurse will be required to come to the house once a week to monitor the child's progress and report any suspected negligence or abuse.
Ok, that was long. I realize that it would cost quite a bit of money, but I feel that in the long run it would help reduce the prevalence of disease, abuse, and school difficulties. What do y'all think????

DeltAlum · #2 03-31-2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by swissmiss04
The sessions would be conducted by nurses, social workers, educators, etc. They would focus on things like discipline, basic care, infant/child health, education, and maybe even dealing w/ disabilities.

Wouldn't work. Few, if any, within or between these professions or any other can agree on how a child should be raised. Then there are the religious ramifications, etc.

It's one of those ideas that seems logical, but in the real world is probably undoable. (I think I created a new word there)

Kevin · #3 03-31-2003, 11:46 PM

I've always thought that people recieving welfare (for a certain period of time -- or repeat customers) in most cases should be required to use some kind of temporary sterility method like depo provera.

It makes sense, but in the real world imagine trying to convince Congress that's a good idea..

DeltAlum · #4 04-01-2003, 01:06 AM

What about the religious ramifications of that?

xok85xo · #5 04-01-2003, 07:53 AM

actually, i agree with ktsnake on some level..in my ideal world, all people (and i mean all people, not only the poor) should be temporarily sterile from birth and then must take classes and prove stability(financial, emotional, etc) in order to get a license to have a child...but again, that would be my ideal world, and is probably a bit too big brother

Kevin · #6 04-01-2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
What about the religious ramifications of that?

As for "playing God"? If we can get cloning and some real genetic engineering going on I think that would actually be a logical next step.

swissmiss04 · #7 04-01-2003, 06:45 PM

Deltalum, to answer your question (a good one) I say it's not playing God. It's not as if you are preventing the birth of a child or even not allowing the child to be w/ its parents. All it is is a way to ensure that every child has parents that can adequately care for him/her and that every parent has all the help and resources he/she needs to be the best parent possible. No one would go to jail (unless, of course they were beating the kid, but that should happen anyways!) I think all religions advocate the fair treatment of all people and especially advocate the education and care for the young. This isn't some Big Brother "parent like we say or we eliminate you". It's just a means to ensure that kids are being cared for. Not everyone is born knowing how to take care of other people. In this day and age especially it's really hard to do anything because there are millions of distractions that weren't around in the past.

pinkyphimu · #8 04-01-2003, 07:19 PM

lol, i love this. as an educator, i have met a few parents that i wished would have needed a license before they had kids. anyway, as much as i would love for this to be a reality, i know it will never happen. i do wish there were more parenting classes offered. when i was in high school, my school district started parenting classes for parents of kids birth to 6. they did classes on sat mornings and the key club volunteered as babysitters! the classes were about nutrition (right down to don't leave the pizza out all night bc you will get sick) to how to make sure your house was child-proof, etc. i honestly wished my sister-in-law went. she is very sweet, but she didnt see the problem with my 1.5 yro nephew eating spaghetti o's for every meal!

Optimist Prime · #9 04-01-2003, 07:32 PM

The test should be before you get knocked up. Only afterward in special situations. These special situations would be deterimied by the court.
Thus Spoke O-Prime

aephi alum · #10 04-01-2003, 07:35 PM

Hmm... tough question.

There's definitely something to be said for making sure that would-be parents are fit to care for a child. Sadly, all too often, children are abused or neglected, and it doesn't come to light until some serious psychological damage has been done to the child.

But having to attend classes and pass a test is a little over the top. It seems to me to be based on the assumption that anyone who wants to be a parent is automatically an unfit parent until proven otherwise - guilty until proven innocent.

Would parents have to attend a class and pass a test for every single child, or just the first? Seems to me that once they've gotten one child successfully through a couple of years of life, they shouldn't need to take a class and pass a test to prove that they can do it again.

DeltAlum · #11 04-02-2003, 01:24 AM

The comments I made above don't have anything to do with "playing God" really. Just pointing out that some religions are very strict in the area of birth control of nearly any kind.

Just for the record, mine is not one of them, so I'm not trying to start a debate on that subject.

valkyrie · #12 04-02-2003, 01:38 AM

First, I don't think that anybody would ever be able to come up with the gigantic amount of money it would take to run such a program. At least in Illinois, DCFS is completely overwhelmed and as such, mistakes happen all the time, and that's only when they have to deal with the problem parents. I can't imagine what would happen if they (or someone else) had to deal with ALL soon-to-be parents.

Also, I have a few. Upon finding out that she is pregnant, one must attend classes. Does that mean only women have to go? What about fathers? What if the woman doesn't know who the father is? What if he is abusive? What is the consequence of refusing to attend the classes -- father or mother?

I have to say, and I admit that this is going to sound really arrogant, but I would really resent anyone telling me how to raise any children I might have. As far as I'm concerned, unless there is a problem, it's nobody's business but mine and my family's and I would resent the intrusion on my personal business and valuable time.

There are many idiots in the world, and many of them reproduce. I'd love to solve that problem, but I don't think that a class is the answer. Unfortunately, I don't really have any suggestions. It's a really difficult issue.