It's very true. I had a talk lately, my parents gave me a shitty childhood, I've been an adult for a few years now, and they sorta reconciled, appologized and changed their way. But there is simply something there that is not letting me forgive them.
@@e-agjohn8176 You still have to forgive them regardless. They just didn't know any better, or had other reasons why they did that, but they are still humans regardless that makes mistakes. Your feelings of contempt towards them is absolutely valid, its ok to feel that way.
I love this video. When I was growing up, my father and stepmother kept a tally of things we owed them. They constantly berated me and reminded me of how weird I was. My father was then shocked (I'm not sure if this was genuine or another one of their favourite gas lighting techniques) when, as an adult, I didn't just run for the hills, I sprinted.
"And what's more, your parents didn't provide for you with the expectation of a payout." - 2:51 They do. A lot of traditional (and I mean religious/cultural-wise) Asian parents do.
while this is relatively true I think that this idea is typically thought after childbirth, when their in school or when they realize their child is smart or have that potential and can become rich but I'm sure that once they've decided not to abort them they are not thinking about the cash they can receive from them, therefore the theory still apllies,
What about in the good ol days when kings/lords had children for the sake of having on of them succeed their seats/thrones? Or people who have children to have enough hands to help out in the farm?
Parents licenses would be awesome. Problem is, it would be difficult to stop people from having kids without a license. It would also need to include a psychological evaluation .. as a person who was neglected badly as a child I have to really praise you and thank you for this episode. So many people tell me I should feel obligations toward my family, because they supplied me (if not with enough) with material goods. I have had so many people trying to make me feel guilty. It is nice to hear a different answer, which reflects so many points. Thank you for making such a helpful episode.
The actual quote about blood being thicker than water is misinterpreted. The original saying was blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb. So, bonds made in battle are worth more than simply genetics.
I have, and all references lead nowhere. I haven't found a single literary source that dates that meaning of the expression back more than a handful of years. So I'm asking if you know of one.
Mental health check, and questions about raising a child and how to deal with problems that may arise. Also, how to deal with selfish feelings of frustration and anger, and how to not take them out of the child. I'm assuming free classes would teach the specifics.
if your child turned out to be disabled or have other kinds of socially uacceptable difficulty would you still love and care for them? Strongly Disagree - Disagree - Agree - Strongly Agree.
+Alice Sarah Beck While this sounds good in theory, when given a general description in politics, "mental health checks" can translate to a lot of trouble for people with relatively innocent mental healthy deviancies, such as people with high-functioning autism or ADD. Recently, for my driver's license, I had to have an interview with a doctor and pay significantly for that interview. I had to explain that I have PDD-nos within the autism spectrum, that I don't have a lot of trouble, unless it's a very specific situation. Also, I use ritalin, because PDD-nos often comes with ADD-like symptoms. I was almost refused outright by the system, because the laws were not up to date with healthcare practices that often proscribes ritalin for people with PDD-nos. I was able to produce a diagnosis of ADD just in time, but that sort of thing happens more often than you'd think. I think that there's a very real chance that the ignorance of politicians putting these kinds of licenses in place could lead to people like myself being unable to raise children with the same mental deviance that they themselves can best identify with.
I wouldn't want my kids to feel guilted into spending time with me, or doing something (like having my grandkids) for me. Seems like a pretty shitty relationship if they only hang out with me out of guilt.
It was probably the brother or sister of whoever writes the scripts (or the editor who filters stuff, or the producer who will deny the episode if their anecdote is not included...)
"isn't blood thicker than water?" Technically, yes. But the axiom, "blood thicker than water", means the opposite of how everybody uses it. The original saying is: "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" Basically; the people you choose to have in your life are more important than familial obligations.
@@botigamer9011 Well in that case, I observe that the density and the viscosity of magma or lava is higher than water, blood, or maple syrup. Therefore, I have a higher loyalty to the core of the earth and volcanoes. Also, what about neutron stars and black holes. (I know that was a joke please no woosh)
I like the idea of parent licenses to an extent, though I feel like many would consider that to be too intrusive of the government. At that point, for example, you could weed out people with certain views who would raise their kids to have their own perspectives, almost selectively breeding schools of thought. If parent licenses were to be a thing, we would have to make it as transparent and decentralized a process as possible.
I absolutely agree with you. I even might add that the parents-to-be are allowed to repeat the licensing exam as much as necessary - someday, all the pedagogical knowledge will be stuck in their head. And with transparency and maybe yearly (or every five years or so) check-up´s, many problems and mistreatments could be prevented, leading the children to grow up to decent human beings - the plan to improve society
Tabasco sauce? Gasoline? Mr. Clean? It's one of those... I can't remember which. It's been months since I've seen my 25 kids, but they're around here somewhere. Drinking all my damn gasoline!
that's the problem, it would imply using mandetory temporary sterilization on early teens or something like china's one child policy but much more selective. and what if you got a a kid with no licence? are they just gonna take him/her away? Are they sending to jail or subjecting you to a fine? All solutions seem immoral but the concept itself isnt'
ID databases and mandatory blood tests for parental identification. No child born without parental identification in the hospital would be legal. It's not like there isn't already a problem with children born without a birth certificate, but then at least then there would be an effort to educate people on the mechanics of child rearing.
I have two issues with the idea of "parenting licenses": 1) Being a "good parent" *sounds* like something we ought to be able to agree on, but I can see it getting tricky. People already disagree regularly about corporal punishment and religious education (just to name two topics off the top of my head) and anyone who is a parent currently (me, for example) can tell you that pretty much any decision you make for your kids will net you criticism from somewhere. *Tl;dr "good parenting" is not an uncontroversial topic, so who gets to decide what it is?* 2) The reason gun, hunting, fishing, and driving licenses all work is that those are activities you have to consciously opt into. You can become a parent (or at least a prospective parent) entirely by accident (in fringe cases you don't even need to have sex with anyone). How does our prospective license handle people who became prospective parents by accident or against their will, and who fail the test?
For what it's worth, I agree with you on those. My point was just that a lot of people don't (and some people view the absence of things like religious education and corporal punishment as damaging to children) so getting a consensus on what "good parenting" looks like from a legislative level is probably going to be tricky.
I feel that it would be best if the test focused more on how to deal with certain aspects of raising a child- like a child's specific needs at different ages, how to deal with stress/not take it out on the child, the scientifically proven most efficient ways to teach a lesson, how NOT to spoil your child, a basic check on the individual's worth ethic and priorities, the test should also check for mental health and motivations for having a kid.
But you see there are some clear case of bad parenting cases that could be avoided if we had test that could profile and help prevent certain people from getting their hands on kids from the start, for example homes with signs of drug abuse, excessive violence, or even sexual abuse, in fact we already enforce this taking their kids away, but this happens after the fact, with parenting licenses we could apply prevention.
From my comment: You run in to the problem of "how do you enforce the rule?" Where...like...OK, do you force them to have an abortion? That sounds wrong. Do you take the child away if they don't pass the test before the baby leaves the hospital? A bit more reasonable. I mean, if they can't pass the test after 9+ months of classes and testing...I wouldn't want anyone raised by them then. (Assuming the test was fair and actually about welfare of the child, and not some sort of political...wait...a law that isn't political. Nvm.)
I'm Asian. My parents think I owe them everything including money, time, attention, and even making important life choices. Lol. Good thing I left them and never looked back.
@@queenbedamnedsheiba I've noticed that people who are okay with others not living or ironically say "yeah maybe I shouldn't have been born" actually enjoy being alive quite a bit, as they should. Living is awesome.
@@Shrugboatt uhum, if you are healthy born and preferably "1st worlder". (which i am, too by the way). I've seen people around whose life is pure suffering. because of child abuse, alcholol abuse, complete lack of love, or other more objective measures; such as lethal illnesses that weck havoc on you till you die. (if you happen to be bor with one). I still value life per se, i still think some people's lives are hell due to their genetical code, or due to lack of basic education or any kind of decent living conditions provided by parents. moreover i sense that majority of people have kids because they wont to "fullfill something" in their life and not let tchem live freely and experience life. and then (especially and primarly) when they have bad realtionship themselves they make this disgusting family constelation of "loving son or daughter more than actual spouse".. i've seen so many Times.. i wished only certain and worhty of it people would be fertile(and i don't mean myself, i dont care if i am cause i dont plan on having kids, its a personal choice, it doesnt mean i hate them or anything, theyre usualy a victim of the whole game).. it would reduce so much suffering in this world
I'd take a middle of the road approach. you are required to follow parenting courses upon expecting a child. were not going to license parenthood. essentially speaking you hope that what was taught at these courses sticks and benefits the child. and if not, well we still have child protective services in place. the focus of such courses should be to provide parents with tools not to dictate them on how to raise their children.
the state and a fine... 1% of discretionary was 11.1bilion (in 2015) dollars that would more than pay for it and all you have to do is spend only 53% on the military instead. hopefully, this will limit the number of cases child protective services will have to deal with and these savings can offset the costs of these courses. the punishment is obviously a fine anything more is complete overkill. don't ask questions you could have easily answered by yourself, please.
+lucidity...because the kind of people who have unplanned pregnancies and would need those classes are exactly the type of people who pay attention in mandatory state education.
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen What if they are too poor to visit the doctor that often, and live in a country wherein healthcare is not covered by the state? That plan would seem to suggest that the poor are unfit to be parents, because they cannot afford to take their child to the doctor so often (likely only go if something is wrong, not for semi-annual check-ups). Wouldn't that essentially be only allowing people to raise children if they meet a certain income requirement (enough money to pay for frequent medical bills)? Seems like a slippery slope, until medical care is provided by the state.
lucidity How big will that fine be? And whats the point of that fine anyway, too punish those who are in financially difficult situation even more? Furthermore, why would state have to pay for that. It's you that wants to have a child not a state. And do not even get started on that he will become taxpayer one day, because unless you want to enforce serfdom, you cannot really expect that. It's funny how in almost everything child related socialist claim to know and care the best. Whether it is education or even right to have children. I think evolutionary instincts to take great of our offsprings and empathy for also children in need has got us so far, and it would be stupid too enforce something on whole population because some fringe cases. And finally as education has clearly shown to USA, parents deciding what is best for their children on avarage leads to much better results then to have state make those desicions for you.
A big problem with the parenting license is that it has such heavy and obvious room for abuse, there are eugenics arguments only a slippery slope down from there
I really hate making up names for this kind of stuff - That's not even considering the possibility that the number of children you could have could be limited by the government as well
You know that slippery slope is a logical fallacy, right? It's not a valid philosophical argument-it uses fear to avoid actually entertaining an idea by asserting that it could or must lead to some bad extreme. Just because a license for parenting is being proposed doesn't mean that the requirements for such a license have to be based on class, race, whatever. It could be based on the actual ability to raise a child in a healthy environment (expendable income of the parents, mental health of the parents, sanitation of the home, etc).
James Miller So I just did a quick check and Wikipedia has a whole section of the "Slippery Slope" entitled Non-fallacious usage. I know Wikipedia isn't an awesome source 100% of the time, but it will have to do until I can read the book The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope by Eugene Volokh - so it appears The Slippery Slope can be used in a non-fallacious manner
As an adopted child, I am all for parental licenses. My parents went through a very long process to adopt me, and I think it would benefit all children if their parents went through the same process.
There's something alluring about the idea of making people prove their worthiness to reproduce, but just imagine the draconian measures that would be needed to stop the rejects. I do believe that's a cure worse than the disease.
I think this depends on where you live. In countries like Scandinavia this mindset is much more common than e.g. the US. One reason for this is that it is much more expensive to have a child in the US than in Scandinava. In the US parents can say, look at how much money I had to spend on education and taking care of you - now you have to take care of me. In Scandinavia, healthcare and education is free so it makes no sense for parents to talk like this.
Parenting licence would be great in a Utopian world, not so much in the real world. It would be very difficult to enforce. Not everyone would go through the trouble, and what about those having coitus for pleasure and accidentally cause pregnancy without taking a parenting test? Are they required to abort? Would we have to orphan all the illegally born kids? I suppose we could create a widespread stigma in society against those who illegally birth children. But that still wouldn't fix it, and it can't just be a test people are required to take at say 18, because a person's fit for parenthood changes over time as their situation changes.
For me accidental preganancy should be treated like this: The couple (or single mom) should first be examined (as in see the economic backgrounds and if family members will help), then take a couple of tests to see their knowledge on the subject. If they don't pass, they take classes (they have 9 months, so they'll find time), and do so until they pass. What happens if they don't pass? well, that's a pickle. I guess it would have to be examined case by case what they lack. If they lack knowledge, then more classes. If they look like they wouldn't take care of their kids (hence neglected child) then I think adoption would be the best. Think about it, if the parents really wanted the kids, they would do their all to pass (it's not like the process would be difficult, as no one is a prefect parent. But at least common sense, basic knowledge and show that you CARE). If you do not pass after all this, then you'd just make your kid's life miserable. As for ensuring that your parents are licensed, they should present the paper for when you get a passport, apply you to schools, get you a credit card or things like that. This way you'll ensure most parents are licensed. As for illegally born kids, when the parents are caught, they should first pay a fine, (this will promote people to gte licensed first) and after that all the process I explained before (of examination and exams), they go on with their lives. Plus, I think the license should be free, or at least the cost should depend on how much you earn, so that poor people that are still capable of raising kids should be allowed. In the end, the ones who do not get the license are those who didn't care enough, ergo, those who won't care about their kids. I believe something like this would be wonderful, as it would help in the prevention of abused or neglected kids, because, more often than not, these cases are discovered too late, when the damage has already been done.
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. "Oh, so it seems you're pregnant. You have to register yourself using this website -or- call this number. If you don't follow the procedure, you will be fined on your tax returns so do think of doing it". "So it seems that you failed the test but tried in good faith. You can avoid the fines by scheduling a second try on the exam within the next 6 months. Remember, all you need to study is in _this_ booklet. Moreover, we offer free parenting classes for young parents that failed the test. Would you like to register with one of our counselors?" "You've failed to register for a take back of your test and had to pay the parenting fine. Remember, for the second year the fine will double. Make sure to register for a take back of the test". "So, you've failed the test several times. We'd like you to be able to meet two of our agents. They can go to your place. Yes, it's mandatory to avoid the fines." "Well Mrs. [...] we think you would benefit from a follow up with your psychiatrist. Do you need help arranging that?" etc. etc. Just pass an add on TV starting the year before it start: "Planning a pregnancy, from [that date] forward, a mandatory check up with a doctor and written test will be necessary. Ask your doctor about [...] or visit [...].gov. A message from [...]".
Josh Wi I think it's related to how a baby's brain is much less developed than an adult's. In fact, the brain is only fully developed at 25! So a kid plain lacks the ability to make legal and moral choices on the same level as an adult, who can, if their economy/health allows it, move to another country to avoid laws.
Exactly, if a person can't be a moral agent because their brain is undeveloped, why do we expect them to uphold any contract they can neither comprehend nor legally and morally be contracted to (the laws of society for example)? I fully understand that it would be useless to have laws which a person under the age of 25 doesn't need to abide by - I just think it's weird to incur some obligations at birth and not others.
Josh Wi Well, in my country children bellow the age of 15 can't be punished by the law, it's their parents who pay for their crimes. Meaning they aren't forced to adhere to laws they can't understand. So I can't really relate to your view there.
Maja N Technically speaking, while you're a member of a country from birth, you aren't expected to fully abide by the laws of their government until you are of an age to begin making decisions. In most countries, minors are prosecuted in a different way and it really only applies to the major laws: those required to keep basic civility. Given that, you technically only have to abide by laws once you are old enough to have the option to leave the country. This is akin to the college student living at home for free; it's a separate contract made with full consent.
This is, generally speaking, why societies attempt to reflect the desires of their populace. Children cannot be expected to buy in to the social contract and instead have to be enticed into playing along or, in the case of society failing to do so, they become deviants. (people who do not follow the principles of their governing body) Because of this a society slowly changes over time (sometimes maddeningly slowly) to account for changes in the desires of its people. A society that does not change fast enough or that refuses to change (usually dictatorships) will almost inevitably fall apart.
I'd say conditional is better. If your parents were manipulative, abusive, oppressive, or generally uncaring. Then they lose any claim they had to your time and care. Otherwise, even if you don't really like them, you should suck it up and help anyway cause it's generally good and responsible to help your family.
Been thinking of a licence for parents ever since I was about 22. My mom thought I was crazy but her friend agreed. I am glad to see it was brought up here, to me it's still a no-brainer that it would benefit society greatly.
Yes I think one should require a license before becoming a parent. But there's another argument as to why you should maintain family obligations, and it's a selfish one. I believe I heard this example given in Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" There are three types of people in the world, Grandmothers, Mothers, and Daughters. Everyone consumes 1 unit of food but only Mothers are able to get food (they're able to get 3 units of food). A seemingly optimal setting would be for Mothers to only give food to themselves and their daughters (1.5 food each) so as to give them their best chance of survival ... but you're modelling behaviour that Grandmothers should be neglected. When the Mothers become Grandmothers and their Daughters become Mothers, the previous Mother wouldn't want to be neglected as a Grandmother, so to avoid this, they model the 'everyone gets a share' behaviour, so they can live out life as a Grandmother (and aren't just discarded once they become Grandmothers).
Back when my wife and I divorced, I took a Parent Effectiveness Training course that was offered by someone in the community. This is based on the book of the same name by Thomas Gordon and is available on Amazon. It was a pretty good course.
In the vaguest theoretical sense, I love the idea of parent licenses (I work at a daycare and, yeah, they would make my daily life amazing) but as soon as you put it into practice the massive questions are how do you enforce it (mandatory long term but reversible birth control at puberty) and who gets to decide what the requirements are (because when the morals you want to instill don't match those of the people in power...)
I strongly agree with a conditional view of family obligations. By all means, if your parents poured love and self-sacrifice into raising you, give them the respect they deserve, but no one deserves respect simply for being a parent. And in fact, there are some parents who are horrible to their children, and in those cases, sometimes it's better to cut them out of your life entirely. You should never feel obligated or indebted to a parent who neglects or abuses you. However, if your parent did great by you, and sacrificed a lot for you, then yes, I feel you are selfish if you simply walk away and don't ever try to give anything back. Sure, your parents may not feel you owe them anything, but I think you should feel a desire to repay their kindness. But, all that said, I don't feel like that obligation has anything special simply because of blood. If someone who isn't actually related to you made the same sort of sacrifices for you, you should feel equally obligated to repay their kindness. Also, I've seen enough horrible parents to think a parental license, as controversial as it may be, might not be such a terrible idea. Of course, it could easily be abused by a fascist government, so there's that... I could imagine Trump decreeing that no one who voted against him could breed.
Florence MacKenna I agree with your sentiment about the conditional view of obligations. I'm glad you can see how a parenting liscense would be bad as well, though you're only? looking at it from that perspective- it could also be used against the disabled, gay people, trans people, POCs or people who worship alternative religions, like those who worship pagan gods or other religions other than say.... Christianity. In an ideal world, though? I'd love it.
Tabby Feral That's essentially what I meant by it being abused by a fascist government. To keep "undesirables" from reproducing. A fascist government could simply set the requirements of such a test in a way that would automatically disqualify any people they don't like.
I like the conditional view of family obligations. In my family I have adopted cousins who were abused before being adopted and they owe their abusive 'parents' nothing and if your parents are good to you, your going to want to 'repay' the debt even if it doesn't really exist. I'm no philosopher it just made sense to me.
I like the idea of a parenting license in theory; you have to show that you are competent and willing to raise a child in order to pass and obtain said license. In theory, this would prevent children from being raised by neglectful or incompetent parents, which is good. The problem that I have, though, is that this could lead to discrimination towards certain parents. What about single parents? A group of parents, rather than two? Same gender parents? And what about parents that accidentally conceive? Would they have to apply for a license and be approved so they could keep their child? There are a lot of logistics that would have to get hammered out before I could totally endorse the idea, but I do think it has merit.
If you want to create a life You've got to be qualified Now you need to earn it. If you want to propagate First prove you can educate Parental Procreation Permit
I've put a lot of thought into the whole "parenting license " thing, and I think a good trade off between the Orwellian future that would hold and the flawed non-preventive system we have now, would be to provide an incentive for parents who go through the licensing process and prove competency. It could be either economic, or be legally required for things like maternal/ paternal leave (although I COULD see the latter having unintended consequences tbh)
I would love to say I support a parenting license, but the problem, as always, is people. It will definitely be used to ensure only competent parents can get a license, but their definition of competent parent isn't the same as the one most of you probably thought of. It's a really easy method to eliminate groups you happen to dislike. Simply deny them the ability to reproduce. Also, the only way to enforce such a system is to stop reproduction from being possible until a license is obtained. Forced sterility programs are... Uncomfortable...
I'm an Indian and afaik, in Asia, but in India, China, Japan, kids are supposed to take care of their aging parents as they grow old. It is not an obligation, but a matter of pride. That limits your mobility to undertaking job/business opportunities at far places of the world, but being with parents is totally worth it, as today the internet is connecting the world better than before. The root of this culture is the lack of proper insurances and medical benefits in these countries. Male children especially take care of both parents, stay with them and pay their debt to their parents in terms of their health and parents are happy to see their children progress. If there's just one daughter, then her husband and herself will take care of her parents.
greatidea11 see in the US it somehow got twisted. The system was supposed to be parents care for you, u get married, have kids and ur parents care for the kids, while you care for them and so on and so forth but somewhere along the line we started making it a matter of "national pride" to be out of ur parents house at 18 instead of when people would actually be ready and mature to live a "real" life. It's pretty shitty
Ok, gonna get personal. If we're talking about 'good' parents (which is subjective and messy), I *do* feel like people should have a certain amount of gratitude, respect, etc., especially since adult children are forced to remain dependent on their parents longer and longer in the US nowadays. If there's a positive emotional bond there, I think it's kind of impossible (and selfish to say the least) to suddenly turn it into a "but what's in it for me" type relationship. However, laws as they currently stand assume that every parent is a good parent, and only move to make amends after irreparable damage has been done (if action is taken at all). Even if a child is removed from an unhealthy family situation, courts lean towards reuniting people with their kids no matter what parents have done to them. To a large degree, I feel like the US still treats kids as pets/property. There's a certain sense of sanctity of the parent-child bond both in our courts and in our culture that people don't want to question. With good parents, that's probably for the best. Unfortunately, not all parents are good parents. Not even all well-meaning parents are good parents. Think about this: teachers go through YEARS of study and training just to TEACH children for an hour a day 5 days a week, go through recurring background checks and certification processes on a repeating basis; yet parents have absolutely NO requirements put on them in order to be considered capable of raising these same children behind closed doors. It's insane. How hard would it be to have a few mandatory films that parents had to watch before they left the hospital? Even ones they could test out of? Something? Anything?? As someone who suffered various forms of abuse on a continual basis over my entire childhood, the idea that you somehow 'owe' your parents for the choices they made is kind of ridiculous to me. In particular, my own mother would often go through cycles where she would do something particularly awful, feel bad about it, and then try to buy me something or do something nice to "erase" that, because in her mind that meant that I "owed her" for "being so nice to me"... in essence, she felt that doing nice/good/decent things was like charging a pre-paid moral card to be abusive later. Needless to say, the lack of a normal family relationship in my formative years left me totally ill-equipped to interact normally with the people around me. By some miracle, I have largely made up that gap now (to the point that most acquaintances have no idea there's anything out of the ordinary in my upbringing), but despite my meticulous observation in my elder adolescence, subsequent behavioral study, constant self-reflection and improvement, and a support network of genuinely amazing friends, there are still moments where something "normal people" don't even have to think about goes completely over my head, or I react in a socially inappropriate way spurred by how I was "raised", and I'm reminded that no matter how hard I try I will never be quite as "normal" as people who had happy, supportive parents who loved them. And I'm saying this as someone who is pretty lucky: I managed to figure out a lot of my mess. Most children of abuse don't get the chance/and or don't have the tools (emotionally/mentally) to come even this far. Bottom line: every parent (whether they're a married nursery school teacher on kid number 8 or an 18 year old having their first kid on their own) could benefit from some basic education on how to raise kids properly, and how to not accidentally screw them up. No one suffers from being better prepared to raise their kids, but some parents desperately need that information. Parenting is hard enough when you actually know what to aim for, let alone when you're flying blind or when someone willfully incapable is at the helm. Until we start treating kids' lives as seriously as adults' rights to do their own thing, kids like me will continue to be failed by the system and we will continue to see children whose lives are irreparably damaged (through no choice of their own) because no one has the balls to intervene when it comes to people and their kids. I know it sounds extreme to our master-of-your-own-destiny culture to impose tests or limitations or gauges of worthiness on potential parents, but frankly it would be more than worth it to live in a world where no other child has to grow up the way I did. I know it would be difficult to agree on but since when did something being difficult mean it wasn't worthwhile? Thousands of kids continue to suffer every day while adults hem and haw.
Guys , your parents deserve to do will with them . They raised you and they will be beside you always. When they get old , they need you beside them. In my religion, labor pain is enough for making you owe to your mother by every thing. Imagine all love and caring that your parents gave you other than labor pain.
Personally I tend to involve myself a bit too much with strangers, it becomes mentally tasking when my first question after getting a "meh" response to "how was your day?" is "what's wrong?"
90% of potential parents would fail miserably at the test. But it's a great idea because people would finally start realizing how messed up society really is, and thus refuse to bring anymore children into this disaster.
i would love a parenting licence. i feel like it would be good to know you have yourself together before bringing someone new into the world. it would make me feel confident if and when i choose to have a child of me own. but, i wonder how it would be enforced... what problems would crop up with people who have children disregarding the licence...
I believe that people must do courses of how to be a responsible parent, what important is to have a healthy family for the kids, and how important is family for society, but I do not consider necessary to have a license.
@@ForOrAgainstUs I don't see it as excessive control. After all, by granting the right to procreate, we can prevent harm on future humans. Think about that. The general principle that we can prevent harm is applied to may crimes, and is therefore illegal. Murder harms many people. Assault harms many people. Parenting, equally, has the capacity to cause harm.
I think this was the best episode so far... it was valuable because I hadn't really scrutinized my beliefs in this area before (aside from the licensing thing), and I don't think I'm alone. Most adults can't explain reasons why they behave in certain ways towards their parents and just think there's no other option.
how do I know if my parents are good? what makes parents good or bad? is it measured in a materialistic point of view or the way you were raised point of view?
A good parent is someone who feeds clothes educates and loves their children. If they do everything they can to make sure their kids have a great childhood and have the same (if parents are in a good economic position) or better opportunities then they had. If it is done for no other reason then for the love of their children then they are good parents. A bad parent is someone who does less or exactly the bare minimum Feed, clothe, and educate (100% biasly). Bad parents do not show love and have alternate motives then love for their children for what they do. Someone could be terrible at parenting but be a good parent. For example someone who despite having very little money or parenting skills manages to get the minimum done while loving their children and having the best of intentions with everything they do. On the other hand someone can be good at parenting but a bad parent. If they give their children everything but are never giving them love or attention
@spookDogg Well, my father is a fully-blown narcissist. He used to take great pleasure in physically and emotionally abusing me and my brothers when we were young. I would put him on the bad list: Just my personal input
Ever heard of the saying "it takes a village to raise a child"? Everyone you interact with is raising you to be who you choose to become. It makes sense that friendship is important. There are already parent licenses through the jobs that work with children, the parents that give their children away in marriages, etc.
I’ve been saying that parents should be licensed, for like decades now. And that there is absolutely no obligation to them whatsoever, it was their decision, not yours. Yet there is a great deal of self value in the acceptance and love for them. Whatever their parenting skills were or weren’t. Love for them is quite accurately love for your self. And this doesn’t mean you should follow their steps or their will... Had 9 siblings so well.. that’s that
This video makes me think of the way marketers try to con us into buying stuff. Like food tasting, or telemarketers making nice with you, is used in order to cause a feeling of debt. Also, the full quote is "Blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" (promises made with a friend should have a harder hold than biology).
Yeah the issue is that in theory it's meant to prevent bad parenting, but in practice it's Eugenics. Even if that wasn't the intent of anyone involved, to become parents you need the time to apply for a license. That already favors the well off . What's worse the only way to actually enforce it is to either take children away from "unsuitable" families or mandatory sterilization. Both of which are the stuff of dystopian fiction for good reason.
Kaitlyn McCaffrey the theory definitely favors the well off, but if you cant find the time to go to parenting class and getting a parenting license than how could you have the time needed to raise said child. it sucks to say but a poor single mother doesn't have time to watch over and raise children so either we need licenses or monetary support for parents so they can work less and have more time to raise the child.
Sounds logical in theory, but yes, it's definitely government overreach. Individual morality should be simply encouraged, not pushed into people. Also, groups up top could make more difficult for certain people to gain permit based on their own personal biases.
It is not about the government, it is about the society. You should be able to show that you are capable of raising a healthy member for society. It seems ultra-logical to me.
I'm pretty split on the license thing. On one hand, yeah, having a screaming to prevent shitty parents sounds amazing. On the other hand, there is too much opportunity for discrimination, which already happens with adoption. Then there is the big problem of bodily autonomy. Especially if you are pro-choice; assuming people have the right to end a pregnancy because it's their body, it also stands that people have the right to get and stay pregnant.
I would assume an unregistered child would not have a SS#, would not be able to attend school, get health care or do anything without being exposed- If they were to be exposed, I would assume they would be taken to a bording school or foster care until the parent passed the test. If the tests are free, a good parent has no need to avoid them.
From my comment: You run in to the problem of "how do you enforce the rule?" Where...like...OK, do you force them to have an abortion? That sounds wrong. Do you take the child away if they don't pass the test before the baby leaves the hospital? A bit more reasonable. I mean, if they can't pass the test after 9+ months of classes and testing...I wouldn't want anyone raised by them then. (Assuming the test was fair and actually about welfare of the child, and not some sort of political...wait...a law that isn't political. Nvm.)
Matt T I think taking away government help from those who don't have a license would work better. Let them have kids, but don't expect society to take care of them if you aren't qualified to. It would make people think twice before having children when they aren't ready.
XiggyJ here's the problem we already concluded that they are bad parents, and now society is not going to take care of them, yet we are allowing them to continue the process, they will grow up, and then we have to deal with the aberration that came from that, that's a horrible idea, if they are bad parents they shouldn't have the kids as simple as that.
That test for parenting really seems like a good idea. But then again, who gets to decide how to raise a child? Some parents push their children to perform well in school, sometimes overly so, while others want their children to choose how much they study and in that way, teach their offspring personal responsibility for their own actions.
My philosophy includes an important circles of care component. The circles of care concept recognizes that you care most about those in the tightest relationships with you and least about slugs on the planet Zarquon. But my philosophy recognizes this and states that it makes sense and you needn't change that fact. But it also says that there is a balance to be struck and benefits to be had by conciously training yourself to instinctively care for the wider circles. All of them, even the one that includes the slugs of Zarquon.
