Does the responsibility of having children warrant state regulation? Craig Playstead is one of many who think it’s reasonable.
You need a license to drive a car, pull a fish out of a lake, and marry a stripper in Vegas, but any jackass can bring a life into this world. We see the downside of this nightly on reality TV, YouTube, and in our schools.
Bad parenting is killing our country. It’s worse than drugs, corrupt lending, Wall Street crooks, and a flexible legal system. And it raises the question:
Should parents need a license to have kids?
The blog over at Freakonomics actually put up a poll asking their readers if they think parents should have to get a license to have kids. Only 6% of those who voted thought it was a terrible idea. Six. But more on that later.
Now, there’s the whole “it’s my right as a human being to reproduce” argument to counter the question, and it’s tough to fight biology. But no one is out there watching bad parents, punishing them, or educating them. We choose to put insane amounts of money into things like presidential campaigns instead.
I’m not sure having a license is the answer, but it sure sheds light on the fact that bad parenting is killing this country as much as reckless spending and no accountability. It sucks money out of schools and churches, cripples our judicial system, and sends innocent kids to the streets to fend for themselves. Yet not one presidential candidate has ever mentioned a word about it.
The Freakonomics post was also interesting because 60% of the people who voted thought it was a good idea, but impossible to implement, and another 32% thought it was something that should be done. So that basically means than 92% of people who voted think that parents should need a license. People who read Freakonomics aren’t uneducated either.
What do you think? Should parents need a license to have kids?
—Photo mdanys/Flickr
Leave a Reply
35 Comments on "Should You Need a License to Have Kids?"
Im a kid doing a project on this and i agree that people should have license to have kids. The question is why isnt it. There’s alot of kids that was raised wrong and now there the reason why bad stuff happen and they will teach that to there kids but if they have license to have kids they wouldnt have gotten one because they are not responsible for one
Wow seriously. You have 3 of your own offspring and you believe you, yourself, are mentally ok by saying to pass a law that prohibits others freedom of choice in having a child because you and others believe themselves are good enough and all others should be good enough like you and them?
If only people would actually focus on their own responsibilities and stop trying to control others this world would be a bit less messy.
Besides, Control is a figment of the imagination. Besides, its absurd and barbaric to pass such a law!
Absolutely. But you can’t stop there. People have to be unable to have kids without a license. Not just prohibited.
You are correct Sir. Pass the law… When any baby in the US is born after, they are surgically fixed. Once they are of age, can pass a mental health test and have a income that will support the child, they receive a license and are “un-fixed”. The cost of the surgery can be picked up by the tax payers, as it will solve most of our economic and social problems going forward. It is cheaper to pay for the surgeries, than to pay for welfare and watch these poor children go through hell!
My daughter Leila was doing her “persuasive piece” on this topic. I thought that parents should have a license to reproduce. Yes, I’m married.
[…] only would a license requirement slow down an exploding birth rate to irresponsible’s but it would also call for more jobs and […]
I have learn several excellent stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how a lot effort you set to make one of these fantastic informative site.
Procreation isn’t a right. It’s a responsibility. I was going to say more, but that’s really it, and that’s how it needs to be handled.
You guys have half the states (or more) banning people of the same sex from *marrying*, and yet you advocate that the same states should regulate who can have children? Taking the ability to enforce a narrow-narrow normative family structure to a whole new level, are we?
If any government had ever demonstrated a capacity to actually implement a program like this without enormous unexpected consequences I would possibly consider supporting this. Nazi eugenics, China’s One Child (mass selective abortion of females), etc. I could just imagine the implications here: Hmm, this district needs more of X racial representation, loosen requirements because of a projected need for a larger tax base in 30 years. While I realize it wasn’t the topic of this article, the real issue with today’s young adults and children is fatherless households.
Playstead: “But it should shed some light on the fact that parenting is so bad in many cases that 92% of the people who took that poll actually believe the government should step in.”
No, it does not shed light on the “fact” that parenting is so bad. It suggests that 92% hold that opinion.
The really scary thing about it is that 92% of respondents believe that the government has ANY place in this area. The government should play a much smaller role than it already does.
-Jut
Great idea, yes. I actually wanted to write a screenplay about parent licensing, but my husband convinced me it would have to end with licensing being a BAD idea in order for it to sell, and that’s not the direction I want to take it. I might still try, but it would mean suspending all disbelief, because the inevitable outcome of such legislation is that government entities would take it too far and precedents would invariably be set that unfairly restrict certain “types” of people from having kids.
Actually, it’s more likely that governments end up trying to force/encourage people to -have- kids, which is what’s happening in China now, because of the demographics issue (which is a lot better issue to have than eleventy billion more people to deal with). Anyway, even in China, “minorities” were given special permissions, if anything. Nothing will restrict personal liberties on both the legal and practical fronts faster or more completely than overpopulation, especially if a large part of that population has health issues.
Oh, sweethearts, this is so AWKWARD.
I’ll just say it right out, I guess.
1984 was a WARNING what NOT to do- not an instruction manual.
You poor dears. You must be so embarrassed! Don’t feel too bad. It seems to be a common mistake these days.
Anonymous, the very idea of licenses to parent is, in my view, a liberal idea. Its part of the utopian idea that we can perfect the human species. Fact is, we can’t. Not gonna happen. Human nature is what it is, deal with it accordingly. Licensing parents is not the way to go. Both because of those being licensed and because of those doing the licensing. It’s just a bad, bad, bad idea. Real bad. A huge stinker.
Leave it be.
The Wet One
dear anonymous,
have you forgotten that we live in America? This is still the land of the free. I believe that many nay all of the policies that you wish to institute are very impractical and unconstitutional. The government cannot control how we are supposed to live and dictate our lives. Isn’t that the exact thing that the forefathers tried to get away from? Just something for you to think about
dont you think that that would be a bit much for a person to go through, just to have a child? i mean jesus that could take a few weeks.
The only way I see that working is if there were “installable” methods of contraception which were at least as normalized as circumcisions currently are. Then, there could be a license to get it removed and thus reproduce. Likely? If only.
If we regulate births, as they do in every other country,
What other countries do this beside China (and, more covertly, India)? Seriously… most countries do NOT regulate births.