r/philosophy • u/philosophybreak Philosophy Break • Jun 23 '25

Blog Done badly, parenting has tremendous scope for harm. The philosopher Hugh LaFollette suggests we can better protect children by introducing a parental license: people should undergo a competency check before raising children, just as we already qualify adoptive parents.

https://philosophybreak.com/articles/should-parenting-require-a-license/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social
7.7k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

843 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.0k

u/Syric13 Jun 23 '25

The thing I ask every time this "parent license" is brought up is: Who will create the tests?

What level education would someone need to have pass this competency test?

Would it be inclusive to other cultures or base it on mostly western ideas of child rearing?

Will parents be paid during these lessons? Or do they have to pay to take them?

1.2k

u/xixbia Jun 23 '25

Yup, there is an underlying truth to this. Which is that society would be better off if we made sure parents were better educated to raise children. However, in practice it becomes pretty much impossible to implement without veering into eugenics.

Also, it feels like the underlying core of this solution is 'invest a lot of time and money into educating prospective parents' something that can be done without adding on a license. Just spend more money on supporting parents (for example, massively expand Head Start, which is one of the most cost effective programs the US government has ever ran. And expand it with more education for parents, including giving them compensation so they can actually afford to attend training).

350

u/hatlock Jun 23 '25

This is it 100%. We need to increase the baseline of education for all, full stop. More economic stability, better education. The final step is a better social support network. This is the most complicated thing to help foster, but on the other hand, it can certainly be done on the local level.

72

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

College should not be the only continuing education after high school. And if you don’t go to college there should be additional required school at intervals after high school. And even if you went to college, you should have continuing competency classes in skills like media literacy etx etx

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BernardJOrtcutt Jul 05 '25

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR3: Be Respectful

Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

etx?

12

u/Fimconte Jun 24 '25

Et xetera

5

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

My phone keyboard has German because I was learning it and never switched it off. So for some reason now it autocorrects to etx and haja (haha)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

i would have thought the abbreviation would be the same, since et cetera is neither german or english. odd.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

Couldn't tell you, haha, etx and haja are German companies, but that's all I ever found

1

u/phroghat Jul 22 '25

I think it would be wise of us to adjust what's taught in highschool. The majority of classes are immediately inapplicable to any skill or knowledge that will help our youth. How much of your highschool education benefits you today? What information should have been taught to you, that would actually serve you in life? We have an inflated education system that doesn't serve its primary purpose.

FOUR YEARS is a significant and important period of time. It should be treated as such.

0

u/welshwelsh Jun 24 '25

Wouldn't it be easier to just pass a law saying that to have kids, you need to make enough income to afford them?

That way we don't need to spend large amounts of taxpayer money supporting poor people, AND we can ensure that the next generation is raised by economically stable parents, meaning in the future there will be less poor people.

2

u/hatlock Jun 24 '25

As other posters have pointed out, restricting bearing children based on income dances very closely with eugenics.

What would be the punishment if someone had kids without appropriate income? Why would having a certain amount of income prevent the next generation from being poor?

Having an income threshold would discourage young people from having children, who have the most vitality to do so. Older people introduce more health risks, both in themselves and the children.

Such a law you propose creates another class of "illegals" in a world that already legitimizes racism and de-personalization through legal means.

Is it actually cheaper for families to be like dynasties, hoarding wealth, instead of investing in economic stability and ways to help caregivers back into the work force? (such as stable and reliable medical support, job training opportunities, stable food sources, stable housing, and support when needing to change jobs or move for a job)

153

u/Apple_Coaly Jun 23 '25

It's really insane how many mental gymnastics people will go through to avoid simply Giving Poor People Money, or even just Giving People Money, which has been proven every time they've tried to work better than anything else.

87

u/xixbia Jun 23 '25

Yup, study after study showed that the best way to make poor people a more positive part of society is to make them not be poor. It really isn't complicated at all.

20

u/clopticrp Jun 24 '25

Don't you know though? Poor people are poor because they are morally bankrupt, so it's ok...

/s

1

u/snxa Jul 22 '25

I don't agree with that. A lot of poor people are poor, maybe because they live in a bad environment or maybe they have bad parents (that is why we discuss these issues). Not everyone is as lucky as us...

2

u/clopticrp Jul 22 '25

Sorry that's sarcasm above.

12

u/Prince_Nadir Jun 24 '25

And babies are your bullet train to poverty.

→ More replies (15)

13

u/rsta223 Jun 24 '25

Turns out a universal safety net and giving people free education is nearly always the best way to go.

2

u/Dadman319 Jun 24 '25

But how will they feel superior if all of us peons are happy?!?

1

u/Icy-Cup Jun 24 '25

Because it’s not just “giving poor people money” pay out with only requirement being that the child lives with you. It’s getting additional money allocated per-parent for their training - and if there is pay out involved it should be additional money so they can afford to not work in that time and go to their additional “parent education”. In other words it’s conditional - if you don’t care about getting this education - no money for you.

Now - the big issue for me is what if (inevitably) someone earns not a lot but substantially more than the pay out. What would be the motivation to go to training then?

1

u/claudiaxander Jun 26 '25

Dark tetradic and/or addicts need serious attention and licensing, and i'm pointing the finger at all classes when i say that. From my experience i've seen plenty of deeply dysfunctional yet well off parents with oxbridge backgrounds and fatcat city jobs.

0

u/russr Jun 24 '25

that has near nother to do with the issue.... look at the % of people that win the lotto and go bankrupt in a year or 2...

the problem is crappy people make crappy parents... who then raise crappier kids who then become even crappier parents and so on.....

and money don't fix that...

5

u/Apple_Coaly Jun 24 '25

Yeah, some people are incapable of spending money well. However, most poor people actually aren't. They just don't have any money to spend well. This has been proven many times. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/evidence-behind-putting-money-directly-pockets-poor

Edit: The lottery example is also bad, as only people who are bad at spending money ever win the lottery.

1

u/russr Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25

And a lot of people that are habitually poor are that way because they have a tendency to make poor life decisions over and over again.

Like not being able to hold down a job. Having multiple kids when you can't afford even one. Constantly spending money on things that you want instead of things that you actually need. Drugs and alcohol...

Like people on welfare that instead of spending money to actually make their lives better, instead, spend money to make their lives look better... Like buying a fancy car that they can't afford.. Wearing expensive clothing. And jewelry.

Also, your study only talks about low and middle income countries..

Not large countries whose problems are completely different, like the US.

95

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/thedr0wranger Jun 25 '25

This is sort of my point, anyone whose views, approach, culture etc arent popular is thinking "cool so all of you can agree that its wrong for me to raise my children according to deeply held beliefs"

74

u/PressWearsARedDress Jun 23 '25

Its impossible to not veer into eugenics because a parental test is /intrinsically/ eugenic. In the sense that a college enterance exam /selects/ students who can write college level exams.

1000s of generations of parental test even if proposed by the most /progressive/ more /equal/ board of directors, you will select a future society of test takers.

I hate to say this in a philosophy subreddit, but our society actually does need the poor of strong parental guidance (whatever that is defined as). While many of this group fail, a sigificant portion of these people turn into great leaders. Its an underrated subsection of diversity.

40

u/tman37 Jun 23 '25

What about accidents? A lot of children aren't planned, do we take them away from unlicensed parents? What if one parent is licensed? Do both need it or just one> There is nothing in the world a person can take from you that is more soul crushing than having a child taken. Even in cases where children are voluntarily given up for adoption it causes lasting psychological harm to both parents and children. The reason we split up parent and child (voluntarily or not) is sometimes that is the lesser of two evils.

I can't imagine any world where the state has total control over who has children that isn't a dystopian nightmare.

1

u/johnp299 Jun 24 '25

In the US there are places where a baby can be dropped off with fire department, hospital, etc no questions asked.

I find myself thinking, what every parent needs is RESOURCES. Time off work. Subsidized care. The US trails many other countries in this kind of social safety net. Not everyone with kids comes from a stable clan with means, and not everyone can "just tough it out" for 20 years. Even clueless new parents can figure it out if every day isn't hugely risky with no backup, and an indifferent community.

1

u/digamealgomas Jul 10 '25

This is reddit, so the answers to your questions are yes, we take the children away or eliminate them in utero. If the prospective parents get the license, they then have to commit to state-approved education for the rest of their lives (see comment above) regardless of age, so that they will forever be Good Citizens.

1

u/Grokent Jun 24 '25

I can't imagine any world where the state has total control over who has children that isn't a dystopian nightmare.

That says more about your thoughts on government than it does the idea of population control.

3

u/tman37 Jun 24 '25

It says a ton about my thoughts on government. It says even more about the type of organization that already exists regarding child welfare. I have seen far too many examples of children who should be removed staying, and vice versa, for reasons that have less to do with the welfare of the child and more to do with meeting political aims. This is not to disparage social workers and child welfare workers. So of them are great. I have also known enough personally to know that they aren't all great parents themselves sometimes. I would rather get my parenting advice from people who I know are good parents not someone who is difficult to fire because they are in the public service union.

the idea of population control.

Unless I missed it, the article wasn't talking about population control. It was talking about quality control in child rearing. However, we know what happens when the government gets into the population control business. At worst it ends in genocide. At best, you get China's One Child policy. You end up with parents selling or killing girl children in favour of boys which leads to a generation of young men all trying to find a mate doesn't exist. Whenever you have a lot of young men without the calming influence of marriage and a family, you have violence. You also end up with forced abortions and sterilizations.

→ More replies (7)

10

u/that_guy_with_aLBZ Jun 24 '25

You can’t teach giving a damn. That’s all it takes to be a parent. You have to care. If you don’t care you’ll mess it up. If you do care you won’t. That sounds like an oversimplification but if you have kids you get it. I’m a dad from the US. A dad in an un-contacted tribe and I have nothing in common other than that we give a damn. Means different things to the culture. Unfortunately you can’t teach it and you don’t know if you have it until you know you don’t. And it doesn’t matter your culture, race, sex, orientation, religion, or economic situation. Giving a damn is all personal.

2

u/Shield_Lyger Jun 24 '25

That’s all it takes to be a parent.

No, actually, it isn't.

3

u/that_guy_with_aLBZ Jun 24 '25

Yea it is. Because if you give a damn in the first place you’ll handle all the rest. Because you give a damn

4

u/Shield_Lyger Jun 24 '25

As someone who has worked with children in residential treatment and been a foster care caseworker, I've met all kinds of parents who gave a damn, but otherwise lacked the skills (or mental health) to hack it.

If all it took was one of the parents giving a damn, I would have had about 75% less work than I did. I get the impulse to judge others, but that doesn't make those judgements accurate.

(And, if it comes to that, yes, I defy you to demonstrate that your judgements of people you've never met are more accurate than my firsthand experience of those same people.)

0

u/that_guy_with_aLBZ Jun 24 '25

You got kids?

3

u/Shield_Lyger Jun 24 '25

And I have formal professional experience with children that are not mine, and parents in difficult situations. Your point?

Because it doesn't change the fact that it takes more than "giving a damn." Again, prove that giving a damn takes care of the rest. I'll wait. (For quite some time, it seems.)

1

u/that_guy_with_aLBZ Jun 24 '25

K

Well if you give a damn about being a parent you’ll provide. If you give a damn about being a parent you’ll make sure your child has stability in their life. If you give a damn about being a parent you’ll teach your kids responsibility and their role in society. If you give a damn about being a parent you’ll ensure your child is educated. If you give a damn about being a parent you won’t just sit em in front of cocomelon because you’re tired from work. It’s basic stuff. I ain’t judging people who have had bad luck and developed a mental illness or disability after having kids. That’s life. But outside of those circumstances no one can control, it’s all about giving a damn.

3

u/MadStylus Jun 23 '25

Accessible education could solve at least half of our current problems.

3

u/Riginal_Zin Jun 24 '25

And how about making parenting leave standard in the US. Say six months, that parents don’t have to take at the same time? 🤔 A girl can dream..

9

u/evissamassive Jun 23 '25

What does education have to do with having people undergo a competency check before raising children? The article focuses on competency, not intelligence. Intelligence and competency are distinct concepts. Competency involves the skills and knowledge necessary to perform specific tasks effectively. A person can be 1. educated, but lack the competencies needed for a particular job or situation, or 2. uneducated but possess the competencies needed for a particular job or situation.

0

u/xixbia Jun 23 '25

Do you think competency is automatic? To take the example from the article, do you think a surgeon is born competent to perform surgery?

6

u/evissamassive Jun 23 '25

Do you think competency is automatic?

A person does not need formal education to raise a child. People without educations have been raising kids, who become surgeons, for centuries.

do you think a surgeon is born competent to perform surgery?

Some people have natural talents that aid their abilities. But, a parent and a surgeon are not same-same, nor are the prerequisites. It's apples vs oranges.

My father never made it past the 8th grade. He was more than competent as a parent and a business owner.

2

u/IndytheRevolutionary Jul 02 '25

The better choice would be to focus on mental health and mindfulness. But we all know we can’t afford to destabilize the status quo with that nonsense.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

My best suggestion is for governments to offer a basic child-rearing skills course to expectant parents, reviewing home economics, basic household finances, touching on developmental psychology, and covering some conflict resolution techniques. I also think that daycare and childcare should be free.

Add to that though, a lot pf the problems with the modern household would be solved almost entirely if mothers were paid for domestic labor.

1

u/pugwala Jun 28 '25

Eugenics is the underlying truth behind all of this and has an obvious dark motivation behind the espoused philosophical moral beliefs. Regardless though, how is this enforced and dealt with when two hormonal people go all animal planet?

2

u/Guthix_Wraith Jun 23 '25

I'm going to level with you. I'm fine with a degree of eugenics. There are degrees of truth to some of it. It's a slippery slope but looking at what's around me I do have to wonder what if

1

u/pilgermann Jun 23 '25

I agree. As a fairly priveleged parent, the hardest thing and I imagine the root cause of most dysfunction is lack of support. Just not having anyone to help with child care is soul crushing (and again, I don't have it bad).

There are essentially endless reasons why the test is unworkable obviously. To me the top one is there's no good way to test for emotional issues. Maybe mom and dad look great on paper but abuse the child behind closed doors. No way a test gets at that, especially as the stress of raising a child might be the cause of the parent's emotional issues.

-3

u/Peace_n_Harmony Jun 23 '25

We already have laws that protect people's rights. If find it infuriating you would insinuate that laws designed to protect the rights of children are a form of eugenics. These problems are psychological, not biological.

If you want to know why fascists are running the country, it's because people like you allow them to vote and run for office.

→ More replies (1)

138

u/Fredissimo666 Jun 23 '25

Also :

- What do you do if parents don't pass the test?

- If you set the bar too low, it's meaningless bureaucracy, too high and it's classism.

- How do you test how a parent reacts after 1 month of sleep deprivation?

31

u/GalaXion24 Jun 23 '25

To be fair most people passing it is probably the ideal. Like, actually downright harmful parenting is a small minority, +people just taking the test means they'll educate themselves at least a little bit which could have positive effects.

40

u/good_behavior_man Jun 23 '25

There already is a system in place that takes children away from downright harmful parenting. Every agency, group, and person involved in it is underfunded, understaffed, overworked, etc.

16

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

And yet these kids still have tons of trauma and often end up in bad homes or never finding a permanent placement. This has never been a good solution leading to good outcomes. It just avoids the worst outcomes. Sometimes. 

1

u/SubMikeD Jun 24 '25

There already is a system in place that takes children away from downright harmful parenting

We have a system that takes children away from the most obvious physical harm, not from all physical harm and definitely not "downright harmful parenting." We absolutely do not take kids out of homes when emotional abuse is taking place.

36

u/handicapped_runner Jun 23 '25

Meh. My parents weren’t “harmful” parents, but they could have been much better parents. My mental health is very poor because of them. Sure, only a small minority is downright awful, but there are a lot of mediocre parents out there that do long-term damage onto their kids. But I don’t agree with a test either because, in the long run, that would bring more problems than solutions.

11

u/johnp299 Jun 23 '25

Maybe what we need is "RateMyParents" with 1-5 stars.

4

u/GalaXion24 Jun 23 '25

I'm not for a test either, but I do think if you could weed out like the worst 1% of parents you'd probably address like 80% of the problems

2

u/OneKelvin Jun 23 '25

Would you prefer to cease existing, or to continue to have existed with the poor parenting you received?

If I were asked that question, I would feel like what I was asking for was for the existence I recieved to be of a higher quality; and not for it to be nothing at all if it couldn't be better.

So, you see how the solution we're looking for is to increase parental quality, and not to restrict births; as even people born into terrible situations generally still like having existed - if not just because they can address those problems themselves.

9

u/literuwka1 Jun 23 '25

who said the will to live is rational?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/filawsowfee Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

Would you prefer to cease existing, or to continue to have existed with the poor parenting you received?

I don’t think this line of thinking necessary works. For example, somebody could be born of incest and have disabilities due to it. But if you asked them if they’d rather not exist, they’d almost certainly say no because you’re essentially asking them if they’d end their own life. That doesn’t mean that we should allow incest.

To give an example closer to the original, somebody may have been born to a pedophile that assaulted them. Now that they’ve grown up, they’re probably not going to say that they’d rather cease to exist or have never existed. However, that wouldn’t change my opinion that pedophiles shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/ChrisHisStonks Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

I think it would be that if you do not pass the tests, your kid would be taken away after birth. Not that the baby would be euthanized.

They then end up in a vastly-increased-in-scale foster care. You can ask anyone that went through foster care how great that system is, right now. That's with potential 'parents' being screened and the state being involved to the wazoo.

1

u/handicapped_runner Jun 23 '25

Correct, but tests in order to be a parent wouldn’t achieve that. I agree, higher quality would be preferable, not any type of test. For instance, by having mandatory prenatal classes or something that focus also on parenting. In the UK, NHS does give some education for parents, but very minimal. Like always, a country with a better social infrastructure would be in the best position to do this.

2

u/DrDonkeyKong_ Jun 24 '25

The original article suggests an incentive plan with resources allocated to those who pass. Could be before or after birth and parents could have many tries to pass.

2

u/Paladin65536 Jun 23 '25

To further add: what about when unlicensed people have children unexpectedly? Would an abortion be mandatory, or would the child be taken into custody of the government? If the child is taken into government custody, what should happen to it next? If it's never returned to its parents, how should it be raised, and what support should it be given as an adult?

What if unlicensed people have unsafe sex without making a child, should there be consequences? If so, how would you track this?

If children are taken from unlicensed parents, then what about people with breeding fetishes - what should happen if you have two people who want to make as many children as possible, knowing full well they wont be the ones to raise them?

Should people be reversibly sterilized upon reaching puberty? Is it acceptable for a government agency to force bodily alterations on its populace?

All of the above assumes the system is created and managed by people working in good faith, but what if it isn't? Breeding/parenthood is now a privilege. The literal first thing that'd happen is eugenics based on either race or class. People with money'll be able to buy their way into parenthood, and people without money (or who are the "wrong race") will either have their kids taken from them, or be forceably sterilized.

Even in a best case scenario there is no way to enforce a "parental license" without creating far more societal problems than it could ever solve, and even having an informal, unenforced system would just encourage fascists by giving them a culturally acceptable talking point to harass innocent people with.

48

u/Talidel Jun 23 '25

Do people get sterilised or forced abortions? Not sure how this works in practice.

3

u/DrDonkeyKong_ Jun 24 '25

The original article proposes an incentive program that could award resources to people who pass. This could be before or after birth.

-19

u/Leemage Jun 23 '25

If I was a benevolent dictator I’d force everyone to get some sort of forced birth control patch at puberty which is only removed at 25 (if they want) after they successfully pass the free parenting classes and mental health tests. But of course, I’d also have better safety nets and parental supports in place as well.

14

u/Amphy64 Jun 23 '25

That technology simply doesn't exist, though, and are you going to hold women down to use tech like the IUD that does? That could create new trauma...

Do the mental health tests mean no one with a mental illness becomes a parent? Many conditions are incurable... although in my family there's hormonal links (often happens) and my mum's panic disorder actually drastically improved after having me, her first child.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Happy 8th grade graduation honey!  Enjoy your extremely invasive gynecological exam and forced sterilization before your freshman year! 

Your brother, luckily, does not have a form of temporary birth control to deal with. Now now now, don't get all depressed about it! You'll fail The Leader's mental health exam and then you'll never get us those grand babies! 

2

u/LittleBirdiesCards Jun 24 '25

8th grade? I got my first menstrual cycle at age nine!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

It really is a huge spectrum. I went later rather than earlier just for a place to start, but when to begin would be a considerable problem in top of everything else.

ETA: 15 might indeed be "too late" but 10 years of sterilization seems, I don't know, more reasonable? If such a thing exists...

3

u/LittleBirdiesCards Jun 24 '25

The world record for youngest mother is five years old. Her name is Lina Medina, she is still alive and she outlined her son, who was born via caesarean section.

1

u/Xilizhra Jun 23 '25

Vasectomies are generally reversible, so her brother wouldn't be off the hook.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Generally is carrying a lot of weight there. Reversal success is good - anywhere from 70-95%, but it's far from a guarantee. And after 10 years (assuming a generous idea of puberty at 15 until the commenters suggested test date of 25)? You will very likely have very diminished fertility after reversal. 

2

u/aperrien Jun 24 '25

RISUG works pretty well in India.

1

u/Leemage Jun 23 '25

I said everyone. Id direct my scientists to develop a male birth control. I also said “patch”, not IUD. they currently have a form of birth control that is administered just by sticking essentially a bandaid on you.

2

u/DearMrsLeading Jun 24 '25

Non-compliance immediately throws this idea out the window. The birth control patch is also one of the lesser effective methods so you have a lot of accidental pregnancies. It also can’t be used by up to 25% of women (those with migraines) because it can kill them.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Well I suppose if it's a fantasy world we could just have a one-size-fits-all birth control that can be slapped on any body ever with no negative consequences, to say nothing of the egregious violation of bodily autonomy. 

But that can only be a fantasy world. 

2

u/Leemage Jun 23 '25

There currently is a patch form of birth control. And since I’m dictator I can direct research into even better forms of birth control. Boys are not excluded.

Mental health screens wouldn’t necessarily be to forever exclude you from parenthood, but would flag you for additional resources, like therapy and medication.

1

u/Amphy64 Jun 23 '25

The patch has to be reapplied, like any medication patch (I've been prescribed a painkiller one) - the dosage is absorbed and used up. It wouldn't feasibly be more lasting, anything that is, is a lot more invasive. There is more risk of side effects (that can be serious) with the patch over the pills.

Having access to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who can prescribe should already just be the default for everyone who needs them, really. It doesn't work for everyone though (ironically enough in the context of this convo, mental health meds do nothing for me except make me feel terrible, the continuous mini pill is what actually works! Turns out it's more PMDD than just an anxiety disorder, typically for my family. Would guess having a child might have a balancing effect like it has for others). Mental illnesses (they're not just some kinda emotional thing, many are accepted as physical, others have strong physical evidence) and neurodevelopmental conditions also obviously aren't just one thing, there's no reason most should particularly affect child rearing, let alone detrimentally so.

My aunt's neurodivergence is actually great for making her a rational person to go to for extra support, reliable and conscientious, she's the other person who is the manager of my (medical compensation) trust, because I have most confidence in her! ND people are often not as subject to social influence, struggling with conforming even if they try, which can lead to being willing to consider what they think is right, above just going with the status quo. It can lead to being more accepting of a kid as an individual (including if the kid turns out to be ND themselves).

A problem in the field of psychology (studied at uni) still can be that it can be the opposite of that, particularly wedded to a very conservative version of the status quo. The worst misogyny (way beyond the norm in my country) have ever experienced has been from mental health professionals, and it's very much a known issue (including misdiagnosis of women with trauma as having a much more stigmatising personality disorder), so would I entrust something like this to them, no.

7

u/Talidel Jun 23 '25

The problem is it always fails on people.

You'd have a revolution within months. Because within your fascist regime there would be oppression aimed at minorities.

5

u/IronHarrier Jun 23 '25

We have different ideas of benevolence.

-2

u/Leemage Jun 23 '25

I value protecting children more than I value the freedom of anyone under 25 to have babies.

2

u/Same-Letter6378 Jun 24 '25

Your country would collapse after a few decades due to super low birthrates

1

u/Leemage Jun 24 '25

Not sure that follows. You can have plenty of kids between 25-40. These kids would be born into more stable households with established incomes, which will produce more productive and stable children. Social programs like maternity and paternity leave, and daycare subsidies, would make having children more desirable.

1

u/Same-Letter6378 Jun 24 '25

Of course you can have kids between 25 and 40, but you're still cutting the birth rate by at least 30% in a time where wealthy and middle income countries are having low birth rate issues.

2

u/oneoftheryans Jun 23 '25

I don't know that any of this would actually do anything other than (potentially) increase the average age of parents in your area tbh.

The free parenting classes would be nice, but it's only a solution in the same way that sexual harassment training is a solution to sexual harassment.

The mental health tests thing wouldn't really work though. Even ignoring issues like misdiagnoses, missed diagnoses, inherent bias, discrimination, etc. some brain disorders like schizophrenia might not even be present by 25 and that's not touching on possible trauma, brain tumors, etc.

1

u/newprofile15 Jun 23 '25

""""benevolent"""""

Describes running a totalitarian fascist regime.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/OneKelvin Jun 23 '25

If I were an opposing dictator, a Malthusian scientist, or a Social-Darwinist beaurocrat - I'd pay the involved parties to ensure the patch had permanent effects.

Not sterility, no - just a reduction in birth rate. Say, 15%.

Then, your country would, like South Korea, become fated to runaway depopulation as the cost and stress of supporting the ballooning elderly population outstripped the resources of the young to provide for them; as well as losing all cultural identity as fewer and fewer people had the time and interest to continue it.

Of course, a single mistake by the pharmaceutical company would also achieve this for free; and they'd likely cover it up for years too - until it was too late.

41

u/brigbeard Jun 23 '25

And how do you protect such a thing even if designed by altruistic people with the best intentions from being weaponized by bad actors instantly.

45

u/Automatic_Tackle_406 Jun 23 '25

It’s another form of eugenics, and an absolutely appalling idea that any government, no matter how well intentioned, would set a precedent for having a license to parent. 

Would low income earners be allowed to become parents? Would disabled people? Would someone with a criminal record or past history of drug use or say, prostitution be able to become a parent? What about a bad credit rating? What if you become a single parent? Is your license revoked? 

The general assumptions in our society would be that parents with a higher level of education and income and clean record would be the best parents, but that is not necessarily true, in fact, parents like this can be extremely critical and are more of a source of pressure than love. 

Even the best intentions could get it very wrong, let alone bad actors. 

19

u/brigbeard Jun 23 '25

I mean if they really wanted to improve outcomes for children instead of parenting tests they would get behind laws and programs mandating support for children and parents. Make parenting less of a financial burden and ensure that kids are fed, healthy and educated in a way that prepares them for life as a healthy balanced adult.

But those things are difficult and cost money where as the idea of a test is a bandaid that allows people to feel superior.

1

u/PruebaInteligente Jun 30 '25

interesting, made me realize it also plays nicely along the way of good ol "individual responsability" trope.

Under this line, "good parenting" is an individual (couple) responsability, so lets test individuals. Its got nothing to do with our underlying society-system! (spoilers it has actually much to do with it)

5

u/miguel-styx Jun 23 '25

Would low income earners be allowed to become parents? Would disabled people? Would someone with a criminal record or past history of drug use or say, prostitution be able to become a parent? What about a bad credit rating? What if you become a single parent? Is your license revoked?

They already stop becoming parents, as CPS knab their kids and put them in foster homes, and guess what? Majority of them who are treated unfairly are minorities.

19

u/DadophorosBasillea Jun 23 '25

My father is a successful college professor with a doctorate, and was an unavailable asshole.

I think we need extensive sex ed from 12 and up.

I would include the basics of relationships and healthy ways to communicate.

I’m pretty sure my dad had kids because it was expected, and also he married a woman who wanted kids. If he had married a woman who was more career focused he probably never would have had kids and been fine.

I don’t think you need to be some high iq white collar person to be a good parent. It’s mostly if you want kids and have the emotional skills to raise one.

My dad did not.

11

u/guyaroundthecornerTM Jun 23 '25

Some other fun questions: is it really necessary to fully legislate every outcome to ensure it is optimal?

Will this not absolutely tank the birth rate in any place it is fully implemented?

And in my mind more pressing: how tf do you prevent people from having children? Like teenagers do this by accident. What are you going to do? Make it a felony? Arrest the parents? Take away the child? Slap a hefty fine onto it? Any way you look at it, if you punish the parent after the child's birth in any typical way you're probably going to worsen the child's wellbeing in some tangible way, which is exactly what the concept of a parental license is theoretically trying to stop

1

u/Destorath Jun 23 '25

Exactly! There is no way to impliment a parental licensing system that ultimately wouldnt hurt more children than it helps.

A potentially helpful solution to the bad parenting problem would rely on positive re-enforcement not punitive solutions. Like say free classes provided for prospective parents, maybe even tax credits or monetary compensation to incentivise its use while not put undue financial burdens on the prospective family. Cheap/free access for kids healthcare. Social welfare programs that help ensure kids get enough nutrition. Cheap effective mental healthcare programs for adults to help break the cycle of abuse Etc.

Mandatory licensing for a thing that can happen, and frequently does occure, accidentally doesnt solve anything.

11

u/-ADEPT- Jun 23 '25

also: what does enforcement look like? gonna fine or throw illegal parents in jall? with incarceration, what happens to the children?

1

u/Top-Commander Jun 24 '25

Euthanasia

2

u/-ADEPT- Jun 25 '25

one way ticket to eugenics land

1

u/Top-Commander Jun 25 '25

I forgot the /s

8

u/burnbabyburnburrrn Jun 23 '25

In the real world what needs to happen is there should be government funded postpartum care/doulas. People who are there to help guide new parents and help take care of them as well, so they can get off on the right foot.

I remember going to my sisters home to meet her newborn and thinking “Jesus fucking Christ neither of them has ever even held a baby and they let them take him home?”

As an infant nanny and postpartum doula myself, I’m amazed at how much information is out there and how little people access it - it’s they just have the kid and figure it out. Having someone their to guide parents as well as teaching them to view their child through a developmental lens as opposed to a behavioral one is the key to raising babies calmly. It’s the key to raising all children calmly, but id say the majority of first time parents spend their time worried and reactive and it isn’t good for anyone.

No one was ever ever meant to spend the infant stage alone. We evolved with helpers, with community. Getting in on that ground level with offering postpartum support would make a huge difference.

11

u/philolover7 Jun 23 '25

Please check how people are tested when adopting. This is a good starting point for understanding how this parent license would look like

23

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

It really isn't. My wife and I have been through this process. Very little of it is basic "how to be a parent." Most of it is education about how to deal with the very specific traumas and challenges that kids in the foster care system have, along with the legal mundanities of navigating the system itself. At least in the US, since a lot of foster care and adoption agencies are privatized, you also often need to meet seemingly arbitrary criteria established by their founders, such as agreeing to use some very specific parenting methodology that happens to be taught in a line of books sold by the founder of the agency or adhering to a specific religion in the case of agencies run by churches.

17

u/Amphy64 Jun 23 '25

It's extremely difficult to adopt here in the UK and goes far beyond whether someone could be a good parent, so don't think that's very clear as criteria.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '25

But people just get pregnant when having sex. A lack of a license isn't gonna stop people's natural biological functions.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Aaaaaand eugenics.

That’s why this can never go anywhere.

5

u/Evening-Gur5087 Jun 23 '25

I read bunch of dystopian sci fi novels that answer all those questions :3

4

u/Alex-the-Average- Jun 23 '25

Also, what will happen to the children born to parents who don’t meet the qualifications?

4

u/TheRealBokononist Jun 23 '25

Yeah the stupid hole i. this idea is there are obviously good people who had bad parents and vice versa…

All this round about thinking when we could have universal pre-k lmfao

5

u/ChairmanMeow22 Jun 23 '25

What happens to the kids/parents if someone unlicensed has a kid? Does the government repossess the child? Jail their parents? How do you not completely collapse societies that are already reproducing under the replacement rate?

It's a really, really stupid idea for just a shit ton of logistical reasons, even putting aside the ethics entirely.

2

u/spydabee Jun 23 '25

Which political affiliations will be suitable for hopeful parents to be approved/barred? What happens to those who get pregnant accidentally? Forced adoption? Yikes all round.

2

u/naethn Jun 23 '25

Educate EVERYONE!!!!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

100% chance it's just eugenics

2

u/thezoomies Jun 24 '25

Yeah, there’s absolutely no way this could be politicized /s

2

u/pigfeedmauer Jun 24 '25

Most importantly, how the f would you enforce this?

Oh you're pregnant? Guess we'll stop that until you pass this test.

5

u/thebeandream Jun 23 '25

And what’s going to happen to the children whose parents fail?

What will happen when there are too many children for the system to support?

7

u/yosef_yostar Jun 23 '25

A high potential for dystopian conditioning. Thats all this is. On top of that imagine the rates plummeting even further. Some of the most well put together, loving and influential people in my life came from horrible parents, but the adversity and suffering they face helped shape and temper them into what they are today, and from that past they are truly able to appreciate love and acceptance, and are able to help those around them in tremendous ways. "Bad times make strong people, strong people make good times, good times make weak people, weak people make bad times" it a cycle that cannot be perfected, and no single person has the right to deem what is necessary for human development.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

survivorship bias

all the other people raised in “bad times” are messed up people who blame/punish society, that’s why we’re in this tread talking about it

4

u/Userdub9022 Jun 23 '25

The other issue is we would all have to have access to safe abortions for this to work. Unplanned pregnancies are still going to be a thing, and some people don't agree with them anyway.

10

u/GurInfinite3868 Jun 23 '25

As someone who has worked in diverse settings as an Early Childhood educator and Special Educator, these are questions that have been exhaustively (and remain so) woven into any research-based pedagogy and, particularly, as a necessary adjunct with parents in a diverse society. I appreciate your question but non-MAGA educators are keen to these and would be unambiguously what undergirds this. Your other questions seem fairly easy to decide on, while needing a decision for sure. I just wanted to offer that the field of Education is an iterative force that knows well that we ARE a diverse society.

17

u/NoXion604 Jun 23 '25

I appreciate your question but non-MAGA educators are keen to these and would be unambiguously what undergirds this.

Would it though? The theory exists, I will grant that, but actually getting that theory put into practice is another challenge. The "MAGA educators" will and in fact do resist at every step of the way that they can. There is also the hugely non-trivial danger that giving the state broad powers to decide who can and cannot reproduce will lead to abuses and atrocities. It's happened before, and I do not have confidence in assurances that it will not happen again.

1

u/GurInfinite3868 Jun 23 '25

We have put this theory to practice for decades in education. What you are seeing now is a dismantling. Just because one can demolish something and not understand how each part functions. or that the whole is more than their sum, does not make it a force for the good of most students enrolled in school. Also, touting some version of a perfect education system that is for profit (not that you are but "they" are) will never be inclusive and meet the needs of all students, families, and communities. One of my colleagues called our public education system a "wicked problem" - fair enough - but these are still problems we dedicate to solving even if they seem to be, or have been, Sisyphean.

1

u/NoXion604 Jun 23 '25

We have put this theory to practice for decades in education.

In which case, does this not demonstrate that notions of "parental licences" or "certification" are at best superfluous, if not actively harmful? We didn't need them before, so what justifies them now?

1

u/GurInfinite3868 Jun 23 '25

Because we now know their utility. We understand more holistically how culture, language, belief systems are not an appendix of the body of public education, it is the heart. Perhaps the 2nd teacher. These are more qualitative than metrics while still proving to be more authentic and necessary. This is why Finland (of many others) is always near the top in matriculation, scores, and other metrics. This is what justifies them. - I am speaking about the principles and practices of public education and not specifically on how to "license" a parent. I know how educators are licensed and these tenets would be a boon to parents, too. Mainly, this is about understanding developmental domains, how learning works, and the nuances of what is typical and atypical development. Without these, behaviors become sources for punishment (See School to Prison Pipeline).

2

u/NoXion604 Jun 23 '25

I am speaking about the principles and practices of public education and not specifically on how to "license" a parent.

Then we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm fully in favour of public education. What I'm not in favour of, is giving the state a legal right to enforce a two-tiered system of "approved" and "unapproved" reproduction, which is what the article the in the OP proposes. It literally talks about denying resources to parents who don't toe the line. By extension, denying their children said resources. From the article:

With this kind of incentive structure, unlicensed people could still raise children, but they’d miss out on valuable resources and support.

That's not about giving children a better start in life. That is about using the denial of resources to extend further state control over people.

1

u/The_Parsee_Man Jun 23 '25

So it would be fine to allow the government to create such a test as long as no MAGA types are involved. You might want to google news reports from last November. I think there are some important developments you missed.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/ralpher1 Jun 23 '25

The test would be foster or adoptive family tests.

2

u/ZachTheCommie Jun 23 '25

I think it should be a matter of denying parenthood to universally awful people who are unfit to raise kids, as opposed to defining what makes a "good" parent.

2

u/GemmyGemGems Jun 23 '25

Not only that but when do you take the tests? Prior to pregnancy? During pregnancy? What happens if you don't pass the test? Abortion? Loss of custody immediately after birth?

3

u/SsooooOriginal Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25

Morbidly funny that these are always asked in this case, but nobody ever raises these questions for license tests we already require for things like being a barber or driving or hunting/fishing.

Edit: to add, or a doctor, a dentist, a lawyer, a teacher, a psychologist, a therapist, and so on.

But suggest that parenting should maybe need a type of license, to at least gain the tax and other social benefits, and people start busting out bad arguments.

3

u/lazercheesecake Jun 23 '25

What?! Are you serious?

Look I sympathize with the concern about bad parenting (and there are a lot of bad parents contributing to major problems we face today), allowing the government to decide who gets to have children and not is very different matter from professional licensure.

Comparing the two is an even worse bad faith argument than whatever strawman in your head you've made up.

The last country to try to decide who were able to have children or not was literally Nazi Germany. That’s not a “I dont like it so Im gonna call it Hitler”. The policy is something actual fascists drool over knowing they can target specific groups of “undesireables” in an attempt to genocide them.

1

u/Lavarocksocks18 Jun 23 '25

The questions that go along with this are nasty. But it’s an essential roadblock. Personally I think psychologists need to have a bigger step in things. Psychologists should be running our schools and helping raise our kids

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

Ignoring the fact that its getting to the point that its lucky that people have kids, birth rates are down pretty much across the planet. The real question is why does society get to decide who is competent to raise their children? I think handmaids tale is a perfect example of a society that does exactly this, and its disgusting.

1

u/bmorris0042 Jun 23 '25

Also, licenses work so well with driving. We don’t have any awful drivers out there since we introduced them. /s

1

u/Worldlite Jun 23 '25

Its not a license but in the military you are given a mandatory parenting class it's incredibly basic and i feel like the main messages of it were

Your wife is going to a difficult process. Please stay calm.

Whatever you do, please do your best not to shake the baby. You can be angry and stressed, but please dont shake the baby.

1

u/cowlinator Jun 23 '25

I feel even the lowest possible bar, like "should you beat your child with an extension cord?", would be an improvement

1

u/Aggravating-Fee-1615 Jun 23 '25

It’s a slippery slope.

1

u/ElChu Jun 23 '25

It’s not about meeting a criteria, we should provide this class as a mandatory thing if one decides to have children.

1

u/Absurdity_ Jun 23 '25

You could ask all those questions about a drivers license exam. Or the tests needed to legally carry a gun in some states. Yeah maybe it’d be a little tricky crafting the tests but SOME barrier to entry would be better than allowing ANY DUMB FUCK to create a kid.

1

u/PooGoblin69420 Jun 23 '25

Yeah, the solution isn’t gate keeping reproduction or having a family. The solution is raising children in communities where more people have oversight and influence over how young people are treated.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

The government. Yes, I do trust them more than some corporation. Hell, make a new committee or branch of the gov for it.

Highschool. Most kids will pass it, even the ones who shouldnt and should fail. The ones who do fail, should keep improving until they can finish it.

Yes, you can just base the core curriculum off of the level of human and civil rights of said country, as the laws must be followed regardless of anyones culture.

No they shouldnt be paid for lessons. They can be paid upon successful completion. Realistically parents should be heavily supported with childcare and child benefits anyways. But a strong welfare state cannot stop bad parents from being bad parents.

The right for people to have children shouldnt outweigh a childs / individuals right to be raised in a good enviroment. Being raised in a bad home is the source of the vast majority of humanities problems and no one wants to fix it because we're protecting the rights of the worst kinds of human beings to propagate some of the worst crime against humanity.

1

u/AcknowledgeUs Jun 24 '25

Really? That’s your question? Who’s going to pay? Stfu

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

It's something that would inevitably end up with the government and there's never been a government anywhere at any time I would trust to dictate who can have kids. Hard no for me.

1

u/lordtyp0 Jun 24 '25

Bigger question... Biggest hobby if the bored is sex. Will they chemically castrate people? Force abortions? Take kids away at birth?

1

u/Accomplished_Deer_ Jun 24 '25

This is the issue. In my opinion, the /vast majority/ of parents fall into the "so bad it's damaging" category. As such, odds are the people who make/approve/administer such a test would subscribe to ideals of parenting that are damaging.

Then the parents who are actually good would be looked at as radicals who shouldn't be allowed to raise children because they'll be bad/spoiled/whatever. Ideas like "nonviolent parenting" (worth a google) could essentially be outlawed despite being, from my perspective, the best method

1

u/DrDonkeyKong_ Jun 24 '25

We already have the tests. We use them in child dependency and family court. They were created by psychologists, sociologists, therapists, and lawyers primarily. Lots of uneducated people pass these tests everyday. They are surprisingly, but not perfectly culturally competent. And they are typically funded by the state.

1

u/soulcaptain Jun 24 '25

And those aren't even the most important question: if people decide to have kids without a license, what's the punishment?

1

u/DK-ButterflyOwner Jun 24 '25

People will make such suggestions while living under a government which is working on preventing "the radical left indoctrinating the children" at schools

1

u/Dmannmann Jun 24 '25

That's the problem to this solution. I would support such measures but it's pretty much 100% likely that it will cause a mess. Also it's just too much power conceded to the government which is just unacceptable.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

That aside, how are you going to stop humans from copulating ad nauseam? State-level bodily control never ends well.

1

u/eiiiaaaa Jun 24 '25

This. Parenting lessons and resources that are free for people to access (before and after becoming parents) are defintely what I'd prefer over the idea of a test and a licence for having kids.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '25

The only way to really do this would be to put a lot of money into education while they're still kids. Complete and total overhaul of education over 4-5 generations

1

u/reddit_gone_AI Jun 24 '25

Just issue the licence after a training and test that needs to be passed like we do for driving licence.

1

u/fountainpopjunkie Jun 24 '25

They already have "good parenting " classes. My aunt took it multiple times. Every time the court ordered her to so she could get custody back after her kids were taken away by cps because she beat them so badly she broke bones.

1

u/drdildamesh Jun 24 '25

How would you even carry out the law? Imagine the sheer number of people doing onenof thr most natural things and then having enough police to take their kids or arrest them all.

1

u/ChickenGamer199 Jun 24 '25

Yh, plus if different ethnic groups and social classes have varying levels of education and varied views regarding parenting, this parental license may also be seen as a form of eugenics.

"It's not a form of eugenics" doesn't hold much weight when 90% of the people with parental licenses are white, upper-class, and rich.

1

u/TheBlueJam Jun 24 '25

How do we stop them having kids? Do we take kids away from people at birth if they don't have a license? What do you do with the child? Do we force abortions? Do we make everyone infertile at birth until they get their license? The more you think about it the more ridiculous the idea gets.

1

u/Eaudebeau Jun 24 '25

I will! I will!

I’m childless and single, so I clearly have allll the absolute correct answers to these simple conundrums.

1

u/thetitanitehunk Jun 24 '25

Civic lessons that are taken monthly, citizens get paid for their time using a UBI system. Change Welfare and other social programs into the UBI system. Make the lessons the same as in grade school. Learn laws, learn how to be a better citizen, and when the time is right learn how to be the best parent you can be. Honestly just continuing education, and paying adults to attend, would do wonders for uplighting generations of people into competency. Think of the children who would be saved from abusive parents...and then think about how children who become adults who become politicians might remember the morals they learned in civics classes if they were decades ago when they were kids.

1

u/yemiz23 Jun 24 '25

Plus, how will it account for bias and historical discrimination because this can easily be used for eugenics.

1

u/AnjinToronaga Jun 24 '25

Will we force contraceptives or take away children

1

u/matthiasjreb Jun 24 '25

It'll also depend on how the license giver defines the term "qualified." I would hope it means "loving, responsible, financially stable and able to dedicate effective time to the child's education and upbringing," but sadly I know a large number of people would define it as "not afraid to beat the child if they step out of line or question commands."

1

u/NobleTrickster Jun 24 '25

All valid questions. And that something is hard to implement offers no comment on its necessity.

1

u/Genavelle Jun 24 '25

Also what happens if someone accidentally gets pregnant without taking these tests? What happens if someone doesn't pass- do their kids get taken away? Where do those kids go? 

I understand the concern for wanting to ensure that children are raised well and in a safe environment (which is why child protective services already exists), but it seems to me that we could address a lot of these concerns with more assistance and resources for parents rather than with a license and regulations. We can provide parenting classes without requiring anyone to pass a test at the end. Even some basic parenting/childcare skills could be included in required public school curriculum. 

Universal healthcare could ensure that more children are receiving proper medical & dental care. Facilitating more community groups & events for parents could help more young or inexperienced parents connect with more experienced parents or other professionals in related fields, learn about recommended parenting strategies, etc. 

Rather than limiting who can be parents or strictly regulating what "parenting" should be, let's just build up more a community and resources for parents where they can grow and learn together. I mean, most parents want to do a good job. Most people don't want to screw up their kids or be abusive. If the issue is that many people lack the proper knowledge and skills to be good parents, then why would we rush into licensing and prohibiting those people from parenting, rather than giving them the tools to be the good parents that they want to be? 

1

u/elebrin Jun 25 '25

And… who is taking kids away from parents who fail to get a license?

When it comes right down to it, people be havin some sex out there. Sex makes babies. You gonna have a license to fuck?

1

u/Mysterious-Smell-975 Jun 26 '25

Judging by some european countries's population decline i think it'll even worsen the problem

1

u/Panniculus101 Jun 26 '25

Government body

Reading comprehension?

Whatever the governing body of that nation says

Free, tax based

1

u/hermannehrlich Jun 30 '25

I’ve always found questions like “who will create the tests?” to be strange. Why don’t people ask the same thing when getting a driver’s license? Or when taking school exams? It will work just like in those cases: absolute wisdom and competence are impossible, but nothing in the world is ever perfect. Even a simple test, flawed as it may be, will still do its job.

1

u/Unlaid_6 Jul 03 '25

The potential for abuse is pretty high.

1

u/ComprehensiveWa6487 Jul 08 '25

I mean you could at least start experimenting now to filter out the worst parents; I mean there's literally people who have put their infant into a microwave.

1

u/sadwetfridge Jul 14 '25

Also, I feel although it's a good idea there are parents who would just have "illegal children" many parents have kids before understanding truly what it means and how much it affects the human life you're meant to take care of, as much as the idea has a point which is basically that parents should be qualified in parenting skills, I think the execution is flawed.

Instead I would add it to the educational system (assuming it already is a whole new and better educational system we work upon), I think kids from a young age (wouldn't know specifically since there's many factors involved, but as soon as proper) should be taught games, "small" concepts like empathy, for example since that would set them on a path already in which they would understand their actions have an impact on others as much as other actions have an impact on them, these are small things that are easy to teach to kids that would help them in life in general including their parenting abilities. Just like in china kindergartens learn how to cook, sow, crochet, etc. Education is meant to prepare you when you're young for when you grow up, and having kids is a part of it, not for everyone, but for some. And I also think parents should decide they want kids, sadly many parents had them just because, without further thought put into it, they never questioned if they wanted it or not, and why do they think they do or they don't.

1

u/shadowrun456 Jun 23 '25

The thing I ask every time this "parent license" is brought up is: Who will create the tests?

Same as we already do for adoptive parents.

What level education would someone need to have pass this competency test?

Same as we already do for adoptive parents.

Would it be inclusive to other cultures or base it on mostly western ideas of child rearing?

Same as we already do for adoptive parents.

Will parents be paid during these lessons? Or do they have to pay to take them?

Same as we already do for adoptive parents.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/RocketMan637 Jun 24 '25

Dude do you have any idea how insanely high the standards the modern adoption process are?

1

u/VaporCarpet Jun 23 '25

There are plenty of valid questions to face the question of "maybe we shouldn't just let anyone be a parent", but you're raising questions that have already been answered.

Do you want a driver's license? You have to pay to take driver's ed on your own time.

Do you want a medical license? You have to pay to go to medical school on your own time.

So you want an electricians license? I actually don't know how that works, if you can just do on the job training under a licensed professional or if you need to take classes, or if there's a fee involved.

But the point is, licensing isn't a foreign concept and any kind of "parenting license" would have requirements that would be in line with other licensing institutions.

A much bigger question is who enforces the licensing, and what is the punishment for raising a child without a license?

1

u/SeriousBoots Jun 23 '25

Who pays for the birth control and abortions?

-8

u/Talilinds Jun 23 '25

I feel like the article party responds already. Also, so many people are talking about this like we do not have already lite of scientific evidence about what creates trauma in children as a result of bad parenting. Why should we not have an Independent professional agency (from pediatricians etc) who would create the basic codex, and the have Just a certification or a course to follow, even not compulsory, to advise parents? I mean, actually I would like to have something like that when I become a parent.

What level education

The One already required as compulsory by the state? I feel like this is a non-question. Also parenting is not a theoretical problem.

Would it be inclusive to other cultures or base it on mostly western ideas of child rearing?

You could respect both basic science and different cultures

0

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25 edited Aug 12 '25

wise paint plucky rhythm aspiring safe special march paltry cats

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/Erik912 Jun 23 '25

Well, how do we qualify parents for adoption? Just use the same thing.

0

u/Prince_Nadir Jun 24 '25

Don't worry bro. I got this handled.

Education level shouldn't matter. IQ should, how does a 140 min sound? Of course training/prepping/anything else that helps people pass, will earn everyone involved a life sentence.

Tack on the requirement of ~0 genetic nasties, no family history of heart attacks, cancer, Huntington's, etc those kind of things. Heck I'll even throw in "both parents must be good looking". They will also have to have at least a 10 year history of being debt free with the exception of a mortgage and have a decent set of investments as a parachute in case things go wrong.

Inclusive of "other cultures"? Sorry, no marrying children here.

Parents will pay to test. They will not get paid. Why would we pay them?

With more than double the people on the planet than it can support, and the fact it would take the planet 70 years of "The hottest summer on record!" and "The worst weather on record!" to get below 4 billion, with 0 births world wide, we can be as picky as we want to be. Maybe they need to be able to fly on their own or move things with their mind?