The main thing I can think of is that to in any way enforce this you would have to be invasive into a persons body, and when it all boils down to it, your body is the only thing you have.
I have other objections. I believe that not all people are equal. Some are smarter than others, some are meaner than others, some will live and thrive, others will fail and die. This is the course of nature. Beyond that I take exception to the idea that we need to license everything. I think a lot of it is done to generate funds for programs I don't support, and is used as a way of slipping taxes on us unawares. I think that licensing can in a way allow people to be less responsible. Rather than licenses, which make all people pay for the faults of the few, should you hold that few liable, both civilly and criminally? I think it's a difference in what we see as the role of government. Night man, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:36 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... Well, it's no surprise no one can agree on an idea like this. I go back to my point that we assume the experience of being a parent is something we can all rise up to, either through the help of family and friends or by our own devices. There are some people for whom this is not true, it may not be everyone but it certainly is enough to make you sit up and take notice. Licensing is something we do with anyone who wants to operate equipment, provide daycare, own a business, or just about everything else where the public can be harmed through that person's negligence. Why does the idea of requiring everyone to achieve a level of basic competency in parenting prior to beoming a parent seem so absurd? I could even see it being just like the DMV - you go in, you take a test, they put you on a bedroom test-course where you have to change a diaper and quiet a screaming kid. Now, this isn't going to solve the problems of the Susan Smiths of the world - no one knows what kind of evils went on around that person - but putting knowledge into people's hands can be a powerful thing. People will take this seriously if it is put forth seriously, and it may improve the lives of children in less extreme cases. M -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 8/5/2003 7:16 PM To: CF-Community Cc: Subject: Re: Yet another scumbag parent.... You make some good points. The problem though is that you would have a massive bureaucracy, and it would not necessarily be effective. I am a well-professional with a respectable amount of coursework in psychology and I don't want someone who has a degree in art history or something telling me how to discipline my children, because frankly I know better. I am thinking of the period when my daughter used to throw huge tantrums at bedtime, and the neighbors would call the police. They tended to assume that a single mother in a poor neighborhood would need parenting classes, and I had to go through a bunch of stuff with a bunch of social workers over this.... but in fact if a two year old is throwing a temper tantrum, and that is in fact what it is as opposed to pain, hunger or fear, the thing to do is to not reinforce it.... and this is correct parenting at least as it is currently understood. But usually I had to get through a couple of layers of people who assumed otherwise before this was determined. I am very against mandatory parenting classes. If the parenting is in fact that lousy the classes wont make any difference. The parents will merely learn the correct response. Oh and btw. Spanking and a smack upside the head are viewed as not all that ideal in terms of parenting, but are not illegal in Maryland unless they injure. The thing is that as you say the parent is tempted, and may feel better, but the child does not usually associate the desired lesson with the smack or the spanking. They merely learn that the adult is capable of violence. Dana Haggerty, Mike writes: > Kevin - > > First off, I am not an advocate of licensing to conceive, but of > licensing to be a parent. There is a huge difference, and anyone who > thinks otherwise could do well to really consider the meaning of the > word. My daughter's mother conceived her, but she lost all claim to the > title 'parent' when she ran out on her 1 year old daughter. > > Secondly, I don't think I have addressed the issue of enforcement, nor > do I plan to. The details of implementing such a system are far beyond > me, and I admit that. > > The idea that this could be called legislating for the minority is a > little off the mark. I think this is legislating for the greater good, > and here's why: I am a fantasitc driver, haven't had an accident or a > speeding ticket for a decade. Should I still have to have a license, and > get it renewed, or is that legislating for the minority? Of course not, > because it provides for the public good to have a large body of people > competent to operate these veichles. You mean to tell me that we should > require people to demonstrate basic competence in the operation of a > machine, but such dilligence in the care of a human life is unwarranted? > I think that's an absurd idea, why do we license drivers in the first > place? > > One of the original reasons I cited for this was that the government's > standards for what is acceptable vs. what is abuse have changed > dramatically from what it was when our parents and even from when we > grew up. For instance, my father was raised by being beat with a belt > when he stepped out of line. If I did this to my daughter, I would go to > jail. Now, I don't see how someone explaining the law and your > responsibilities under it, and then asking you to show that you know it, > is an example of the big mean government telling you 'how to raise your > kids'. > > Further, these kinds of programs have existed in the past to great > affect. Do you like having clean water and a disease free lifestyle? 100 > years ago, a sanitation worker was someone who came to your house if you > lived in unsanitary conditions, and sometimes condemnded buildings when > they were too infested. They would teach basic sanitation techniques to > individual families, and their work dramatically improved the quality of > life in America. > > This differs from the point of basic responsibility in that society has > changed, probably a little too fast for some people. Again, people are a > little out of sync these days with what it means to be a parent. We have > this idea of radical individualism with regard to how we raise our > children, but at the same time the government puts definite limitations > on our ability to act. In many cases, people don't know the difference. > For instance, if I smacked my daughter to discipline her (which I have > been tempted to), I - can - go to jail for that (at least in Maryland). > A lot of people don't know that, and probably are not in a position to > teach their children the difference. What I am trying to say is that > basic responsibility probably does not suffice as an overall guiding > principle because beliefs en masse are not in sync with the law itself. > The fact is, the government does limit how you can raise your child, and > not a lot of people want to believe it. Fore armed is fore warned. > > Finally, and this is the last thing I want to talk to you about, the > form and frequency of my choice of contraceptive device when I'm > getting' it on is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. In the case > of how my daughter was conceived, I cannot think of a reason you need to > know the details of that event. Kindly get your mind out of my pants. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:45 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > I think people having to get a license to be a parent is an > >interesting approach to cutting the link between violent crime and > >child abuse. Even if only a percent of a percent of children benefit > >from such a program, it would be worthwhile. > > Once again, let's legislate for the minority. > > > > > >Also, think about the parents you know. How many of them started off > >ready to be parents? > > So, Mike, you weren't planning on having the kid right? So how would of > having a license helped? We gonna put everyone on government regulated > birth control. I am sure the ACLU would love that. Then and only then > when you have a license you can go off birth control? > > In my case, I was a college student who had never > >had to balance a budget, cook a meal more substantial than ramen > >noodles, or keep house. Suddenly, I had to feed and clothe a child. > >That's a big transition. > > Growing up fast is hard isn't it. I don't know your situation, but > would you have had the same problem had you been responsible about birth > control? With every action, there is a responsibility to be taken. In > your case, you now have a child that you are responsible for. > > Learning these things was a lot of trial and > >error, and has led to some pretty tough situations. Sometimes the > >experience was overwhelming, and I could see how some people could just > > >lose it and go overboard on their kids. > > I had my son at 23, and I have never once come across a situation where > I thought I was going to "lose it." > > > A little more knowledge of how > >to deal with the challenges beforehand might go a long way in the more > >tragic cases. > > Fine, you have nine months before the kid is born, that's nine months of > knowledge you can garner. > > > And let's face it - 30% of children in America are born > >out of wedlock, it's not like they are necessarily getting these skills > > >at home. > > So, it should be the governments role to step in and tell you how to > live your life and how to raise your kids? Not in my household. > > > > >Other countries have mandantory military programs where you go on > >active duty for 2 years when you turn 18. This idea, while it may seem > >like something that only benefits a few people, actually serves the > >same end, that the common good can be upheld through vigorous > >preparation of young adults. > > I don't necessarily agree with that. I think responsibility is > something parents must impart, or you learn the hard way. We don't need > the government teaching us that. They already fail us in our > educations, why not let them fail us in teaching responsibility too. > > > > > > >M > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:54 PM > >To: CF-Community > >Subject: RE: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > >That we put away a higher percentage than most nations is probably > >true, but I would take exception to it mainly being violent crime. The > > >last time I was paying attention the major reasons for most > >incarcerations were victimless crimes, usually related to drugs. > > > >If we legalized drugs and prostitution than we would no longer have to > >spend all that money on enforcement and punishment, and we would be > >able to tax it like we do cigarettes and alcohol. > > > >Timothy Heald > >Information Systems Specialist > >Overseas Security Advisory Council > >U.S. Department of State > >571.345.2235 > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
