Parents License - An Objective Look at the Arguments

You cannot end a life. Depending on your beliefs, this is free to a bit of leeway. Abortion, euthanasia, or what have you. Murder is very clearly a big no, and manslaughter is a mixed bag, normally left at the discretion of a judge and/or jury.

Parents License - An Objective Look at the Arguments

Parents License - An Objective Look at the Arguments

---

Parents License - An Objective Look at the Arguments

Parents License - An Objective Look at the Arguments

Whether it is to protect yourself or others, accidentally or deliberately, knowingly or otherwise, ending life is not allowed. In the cases where it is, war, policing, etc, the ending of a life is fraught with psychological and emotional problems.

So if ending life is such a big deal, why is beginning it treated so liberally?

Obviously the following argument is going to get pretty heavy, and I cannot guarantee you will not get offended (but since when have I been bothered about that?). Free speech and all that jazz.

I have been doing a lot of mental on this topic recently. Admittedly, for the wrong reasons. Parents and their out of control Kids, who I look at and end up drawing the conclusion that if there were a test to earn the right to have children, you would have failed it.

As of late, I have been giving this conception more and more credence, and applying it on a wider scale, as opposed to just the chavs on council estates.

You need a license to do many things. Drive a car, be an electrician, sell food, the list is endless. Generally because all of these activities are intrinsically dangerous. Cars, electricity and food can kill citizen and those nearby you. We need a license to do these things because if we were bad at them, we would be putting the citizen nearby us in danger. Other citizen need to know that you know what you are doing, and that you are not going to make things even worse by doing what you are doing.

Sure, drivers crash, electricians fail and chefs give citizen salmonella, but then we revoke the license. We take away or suspend their right to achieve these actions again because they have proved they are not competent and are, to an extent, hazardous when they achieve this activity.
All of these are safeguards to preclude hurting people, or even killing them. So why is creating life not deemed as similar responsibility? Some parents will admittedly cause harm and unhappiness by having children.

I can argue many of these points from either side, and so I will try to be as unbiased as possible, but I am leaning more to one side than the other.

The main suspect citizen argue in favor of a parent's license is that it will cut down on direct and indirect child abuse and neglect. citizen who have child after child, and cannot perhaps care for them for monetary or physical reasons. Or even worse, the citizen who deliberately abuse their children, and from a very young age. If these citizen were denied the right to breed then this sort of thing would be reduced.

And ironically, the word "reduced" is also the counter argument. It would not go down to zero, and thus you would have to construe using a principles that is not 100% effective. When the first child abuse case of a someone with parent's license hits the media, there will be many difficult questions concerning the principles that is clearly not very effective.

How can you perhaps screen citizen for abusive tendencies? How can you screen somebody once for a process that takes 16 years? Who is to know if a someone is totally sane on the day of the exam, but will suffer Ptsd from a horrific accident, and start abusing their child after 3 years?
Putting in a renovation principles just throws up questions concerning what happens to the child if the parent has their renovation denied. Are they taken away, or does a social laborer have to intervene? How is any of that dissimilar to what happens now? It is not. So why the cost of introducing this principles if the results are the same?

In rebuttal to the above situation, that is not necessarily a failing of the system. citizen come to be unbalanced everyday. Parents can go from being fine to abusive, be that from stress, a divorce, whatever. Just because the threat of jail is not deterring these people, does not mean the justice principles needs to be scrapped. The parent's license would merely stop the most unbalanced and unsuitable of citizen from having children in the first place.

Another argument from the pro camp is that the worst parents are often the ones who have children accidentally.

If these citizen cannot even look after their own body, and end up becoming pregnant from ignorance and/or arrogance, then why should they be allowed children in the first place? Abuse and neglect from inaction is not like the above examples, where abuse was deliberately caused. This kind of problem comes from parents who naturally do not know what they are doing. Giving their children sugary drinks all day, junk food 5 times a week, letting them climb on the roof and rummage under the sink.

It seems a bit of a duplicate approved that foster parents are rigorously checked out before they are allowed to adopt, but a couple who has functioning reproductive organs can squeeze out as many children as possible. There is no intervention from the state until the child is rushed to A&E after drinking bleach, or goes to school with suspicious bruises.

This argument brings up the query of what exactly would be complex to procure your parents license. There is naturally so much that a parent needs to do; where do you draw the line? allowable handling of a child, diets, how to teach them to ride a bike, how to riposte the "big questions", how to tell them a bedtime story, all of these are things that could cause issues for a young child, but obviously you can see the differing levels of importance.

Where is the line? What about minimum income, or capability of genes? Most citizen would agree that it is ok to abort a baby who will be born with Down's syndrome, for both the child's sake and the carers. So what about if your baby would be susceptible to other genetic disorders? Is it right to have a baby knowing that there is a 50% occasion it would have cystic fibrosis? Is that moral and should that be the option of the possible parents or the licensing bureau? This is getting dangerously close to the designer baby debate, but with more of an emphasis on eugenics as opposed to choice.

Again, the argument of the length of time this would be valid for comes into play, you either say that the parent is fine for all 16 years of the child's life, or you begin some sort of renovation system. Both come with the same problems outlined above.

For the arguments against a license, the main argument normally comes in the form of Human Rights.

Is the capability to have a child a human right, or a privilege?

Some citizen argue that being denied the capability to have children is highly amoral, and a horrible infringement on people's rights. Nevertheless, where does this come from?

If I have a gun and a few bullets, I do not have the right to use them. If I had both sperm and an egg, I do not have the right to make life in a lab somewhere. But if a man has some sperm, and he is with a woman who is fertile, apparently just wanting a child is enough; it is their right, and nobody can take that away.

It seems a simple enough compromise to succeed these examples through, and soon you desist that having the equipment does not give one the right to use it.

Homosexuals are acutely aware that their sexuality is going to succeed in a mystery when it comes to having children. If they are male, then adoption is the only way, unless they can find a female surrogate for 9 months. Not an easy task. On the other hand, a lesbian couple has the advantage of only needing the male for 10 minutes (if at all if they are inventive). That isn't being sexist, it is just the truth. A male couple has a huge hurdle here, and it is the same as the adoption argument from above.

However, another duplicate approved presents itself. You cannot on one hand say that everyone has the right to have children, and then find it unethical to give a child to a gay couple to raise.
Another argument comes from the sheer scale of implementing such a system, and what that would involve.

If you favor a sterilization method, and even if you assume that everyone over a obvious age is immune to the new system, somehow you would still have to establish anything policy would be complex for millions of people.

Obviously, this situation would be diminutive to your area of governmental control, so we're not talking the whole world here. This would mean controls put on both genders to preclude the influx of "illegal unauthorized fertile people" from other areas.

How would you handle emigration? A simple reversal before they Move away should suffice, but then you would have to succeed that up with production sure they do not break the rules in the middle of now and leaving the country, because I am sure another country is not going to pick up the bill for a policy you told your citizens you had to have.

If you take the best-case scenario, that everyone accepts this principles from day one, and every one in the world has it done, would the cost of implementing and maintaining it be worth the money you are saving on things like benefits, state paid abortions and social workers?

Another leading issue to raise her, is that the key arguments for a parent's license seem to be unfavourably weighed against the females. The subtext to the whole argument is that singular parents are bad parents. Unplanned pregnancies very rarely end up with the mother relinquishing the child to the father. And surrounded by the very youngest of mothers, the father is normally not complex at all. I think it is a sad fact that singular parent families are higher in the younger ages, and that the fathers of said families are rarely involved. This unfairly makes it look like young mothers are the problem. I was raised by just my mother for the suspect my father was never around. My best friend was raised by his mother for a fully dissimilar suspect where his father unfortunately died. In fact, it is the whole of my friends raised in nuclear families who are in the minority, and we are all upstanding citizens.

Nature vs. foster is a good counter argument also. A parent could explore for years their role as mother or father, gain their license and have an absolute brat of a child. Whose fault is that? What should be done? Are we saying that bad parenting causes the misbehavior of every child anywhere in the world? I don't think we are. Although it may turn out to be irrelevant as if the parents have a license they are immediately shown to be responsible; the child may have some deeper issues that parenting did not play a part in.

So there are still some unanswered questions from all this:

Is having a child a right or a privilege? There mere fact there is a debate about this shows that conception is divided, and anything you decide, some citizen are going to disagree. My opinion? I truly believe that the sheer impact of having a child cannot be boiled down to "rights." On the other hand, in an ideal world, citizen would think hard about entering situations that may succeed in pregnancy, and be truly ready for the outcomes. They would think long and hard about either they want children, if they can afford it, if they would be good parents, etc. They would not need to be told that they would be fit to parent, as they would be able to tell themselves if they were ready or not.

Does the cost and impact of implementing such a principles outweigh the benefits it would bring? We already have many deterrents against the poor raising and abuse of children. Parents who wish to remain parents will treat their children with care because they know the repercussions if they do not. But the parents who perhaps don't have as much of their heart in being a mother/father are not going to be as fussed. I think it is leading to note that I don't believe there are many citizen who truly set out to be bad parents. And all because I would raise any children of mine in a way that differs from yours, doesn't mean I am justified in mental you are an inherently bad parent.
Perhaps we do need more standards when it comes to children. As the main concern is that the citizen who do not comprehend that having children is a large responsibility, and the citizen who are perhaps not as aware how leading (to both the child and society) it is to be a responsible parent, are the citizen who are having more children.

But going as far as saying the state decides if you can conceive or not, seems a bit too much of a harsh step.

If we collate this to the debate on immigration, where some citizen believe you can come and go as you like, and some citizen believe that immigrants are a drain on the principles and that they emigrate to countries where they can get good benefits for diminutive input, you comprehend the solution is the middle ground: more control, but also more understanding.

By all means have children, but as a state, we are going to try our best to give you all the help you need in production the choice, and tell you what you need to know. Not just merely let you get on with it, and then throw cash your way when you comprehend you cannot sustain your ever-growing family.

Sex education needs to come to be house education. Every teenager knows that sex can succeed in pregnancy, but does every teenager know that fertilization can succeed in a whole range of other things, infinitely more complicated?

Parents License - An Objective Look at the Arguments

Visit : Buy Shopping Discount 2-Way Out Door Speakers OmniMount Component Shelf