Comments | proletarykitty: Parental licenses: I'm not the only one thinking it

proletarykitty

Parental licenses: I'm not the only one thinking it

Jul 18, 2008 05:20

Yeah it's almost 5:30am and I still haven't gone to bed, never took Ambien.

Anyway, I was reading journal articles online and I came across a very interesting article that got me all riled up about an issue that I support and I'm sure 99.9% of others are against.

WARNING: This Will Probably Piss You Off! But I feel like ranting/ writing about it ( Read more... )

politics

Comments 4

indecisive_1 July 18 2008, 14:10:18 UTC

Your argument brings up some interesting points. I don't think any child should ever be taken from their parent, except for in dire situations, (of course, one could then argue about what a dire situation actually is). Our foster care system sucks in this country and most kids are better with their parents if their parents are just poor or young - but otherwise loving. You only hit on things like age and socio-economic status - presumably things that could change. There are many other factors that could make for a "bad" parent that you don't touch on because of the eugenics issues, (like passing on a genetic "disorder" or a parent being mentally unstable). There's also "goodness of fit" (a human development term) that social workers may look for with people looking to adopt older children, but many of us lack with one or both of our "birth" parents. Meaning, some people just don't work correctly together and the relationship can become a stressful situation ( ... )

proletarykitty July 18 2008, 15:18:08 UTC

You bring up good points from a more sociological pov, which I hadn't realized/ addressed ( ... )

proletarykitty July 18 2008, 15:26:29 UTC

I also believe fertility treatments are way too expensive and should be covered in normal health insurance policies. Even one's own choosing to have tubes tied/ hysterectomies should be covered. Just like prenatal care should be a given in society and not only for those who can afford it.

I think traditionally this is why marriage was so important before having children. It was designed to insure a healthy environment for children (there's flaws, but it works in many cases). Today marriage isn't so important and that is partially why teen pregnancy has become such an issue. I would never support one having to be married in order to have children.

Mainly my beef is with teen pregnancy being glamorized to the extent that teens are making pregnancy packs and simply wanting a baby because it's cool, it's someone to love them, and it ensures government support.

spacewhore July 19 2008, 01:17:29 UTC

I think the main reason this wouldn't work out, aside from what Stacy has already pointed out (especially about foster care, because a lot of poor people foster children just for the monthly check and mistreat the kids), because it's a civil rights issue. I mean, you believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, right? So basically, she should also have the right to have a kid even if she isn't economically stable. It makes her stupid and I don't agree with her, but unfortunately, it's just not fair to tell her what she is and is not allowed to do with her body ( ... )