Ed&#39;s journal

What, in line with the original post? Not in that case. Not unless you were the one prepared to assume 'primary care' responsiblity, e.g. actually going to be adopting the child in question.

From:

We [gay people] really kind of do. If I were to get some spunk from a male friend and inseminate myself with it, any resulting child would not be automatically taken into care.

From:

linamishima.livejournal.com

I'm sure you're aware of the concept of babies as 'benefit bundles', a device to get a council house and child benefit.

Obviously, there would be an utter outcry against needing a parenting licence, no matter how desperately in my opinion such a scheme may be needed.

However, I think most people would agree that it's only fair for people to have to demonstrate their good parenting skills in order to receive benefits and first place consideration for schools. Rather than have a test, have a free course that any parent that simply attends will pass. Odds are, if they're there, they'll learn anyways ;)

From:

I'm aware of that situation. Child care, and priority on housing, including accomodation for families with ludicrous numbers of children.

We support the parent, because we don't want to neglect the child.

I'm less sure about the course though - it's kinda... well, would you really want to be the one telling parents about kids, to see some sat at the back doing nothing at all, despite being the one who really needs to pay attention? That's what I saw in school, and I've no doubt it'd be the same - people show up because they have to, but that doesn't mean you can make them learn...

From:

shortcipher

Odds are, if they're there, they'll learn anyways

You can lead a horse to water…

From:

stgpcm.livejournal.com

In my more reactionary moments I consider the merits of making receipt of state benefits dependant on (reversible) chemical sterilisation.

From:

mrbear.livejournal.com

I know exactly how you feel.

From:

Very dubious under Article 12 of the Human Right's convention:

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

From:

elrohana.livejournal.com

Frankly if the human race continues as it has thus far, in a few years that will have to be amended because the planet will have collapsed under the sheer weight of bodies living on it.

From:

linamishima.livejournal.com

Whilst I actually love the human rights convention, it is missing:

"The right to not have the fucking planet destroyed by breeders who don't give a damn about their sprogling and couldn't care less about being a good parent"

From:

You're right, that would be a somewhat challenging one for this kind of proposal - I mean, we already have the situation where children are removed from an unfit parent, but the criteria is actually fairly low.

Then again, it does mention national laws, doesn't it? So, you may be able to get away with it as everyone has the right to apply...

I think you'd be able to get the laws in place, and may be able to use other parts of the human rights convention to drive the assertion, by putting the rights of the child ahead of the parent.

From:

I definitely agree that there are people who don't deserve the right to a child. Abusive parents being the foremost example in my mind. But would an intellectual test of the ability of a person to care for someone remove enough of the dangers faced by children with abusive parents? To the outside, and sometimes even to other members of the family the parent/carer appears perfectly capable and the child seems unreasonable for having issues with the parent.

Although I can agree that some form of 'screening' for parenthood wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in many cases - especially with young/underage parents - I don't think it would solve many problems, and could possibly lead to many children being in care and such.

From:

elrohana.livejournal.com

Define abusive?

In my non-parent head, a parent who lets their child run wild to the point that they take a gun and kill an 11-year-old, is an abusive parent, since they have clearly neglected the child.

From:

True, though I was more thinking of the parent that thinks discipline is smacking a three year old in the head because he poked him in the leg. However, I wholeheartedly agree that neglect is just as much a form of abuse.

To be honest what I want to do is to educate children more about parenting. At school we had minimal sex ed and nothing at all on the actual raising of a child. What knowledge I have now comes from the fact that my mother had another child when I was older, and so I help to look after him. If children come from unstable backgrounds and never see any other way of parenting, what chance do they have of then caring for their own offspring? In the aforementioned case, the chances are that the parent was only following what their parents did with them, and noone ever told them it was wrong.

From:

I think that's a big part of it - there's a lot of parents who are making it up, and ... well at best they have memories of how they were treated as a child.

Some have experience from close family, and support from friends and relatives - most don't.

From:

I guess the problem being that many adults seem to think that teaching children about the world and how to handle it is a bad thing. If you tell someone about sex, without explaining everything that goes along with it such as the raising of a possible child, is it so surprising that children want to try it? Being patronising about it, or being vague so they 'don't lose their innocence' is not they way to go about it. Kids are naturally curious.

From:

There's many kinds of abuse. You'd be correct, in that if you had a parent that's actively looking at being nasty, and are able to hide it, then they'd get by.

But the kind of abuse that's 'borderline neglect' of a child that, in my opinion, is getting really quite serious in our society at the moment.

The children who don't know what a 'potato' is, or the children who are more or less put outside on the streets to play, because their parents can't deal with them. Or even the children who think it's 'ok' to go stealing cars, if they can get away with it, simply because their parents never really 'cracked down' when they were being little brats at an early age.

I think if you were to put at test in place, you would still get some slipping through the hoops, but... a thug who thinks that their children look better with black eyes is just that much less likely to do it.

From:

What's more annoying at the moment is that we do supposedly have a system that checks these things - albeit after that fact. Social Services are supposed to keep an eye on children considered at risk, and the medical profession and schools etc are supposed to identify these children to them. It does seem however that this never happens. In areas when poverty is high, can a harrased school teacher tell the difference between neglect and plain poverty?

From:

I don't think I would like to be the person responsible for taking new babies away from half the mothers in the country. If anybody recognised me in the street I would be torn to pieces in seconds.

From:

That'd definitely not be fun. On the flip side though, you are more or less saying that if you can't demonstrate you're a fit parent, then... well, clearly you're not a fit parent - so you might see a lot of society backing that kind of thing - I don't think there's many people who believe that treating a child poorly is a good thing.

From:

But there is a lot of disagreement as to what is counted as poor treatment. Everybody agrees that throwing children down stairs is bad, but many doctors and dentists, and sensible ordinary people, would agree that feeding a litre of coca-cola every day instead of water to a child is poor treatment likely to damage their health; a very large number of mothers do it, though.

From:

How many of those mothers (and fathers) do so out of ignorance though? I mean, there's some that might because they don't care, but if they had a chance of actually being told why it's a bad idea, then would that slow it down?

From:

Hmm, possibly it would in many cases. I think it would change for three months and then whinge power would restore coca-cola to the little addicts though.

From:

I came to a similar conclusion a few years back when doing my BTEC childhood studies course. Although rather than a child license I want it to become compulsory that when you are pregnant you must attend classes about the development of your child, from basic nutrition and childcare to how the child develops and what you should be teaching them and when.

Foster care though is too draconian and often worse for the child.

From:

Why compulsory? What proportion of parents-to-be attend ante-natal classes? Pretty high, at my uninformed guess. So, why not just provide free, available, publicised and encouraged classes on parenting skills?

From:

As far as I am aware Ante-natal classes start later in the pregnancy, and don't cover the degree of developmental stuff i am talking about.

And why not compulsory?

From:

hedya.livejournal.com

erm...

As far as I am aware Ante-natal classes start later in the pregnancy, and don't cover the degree of developmental stuff i am talking about.

they do not start until week 32 out of 40 at least, if you are lucky they are 3 1.5 hrs sessions covering how you feel about giving birth, the stages of labour, pain relief available and what choices you have about giving birth and feeding. Nothing at all on childcare, not even how to change a nappy. These things are dealt with by the midwives in hospital if you ask and if you have given birth in hospital. The classes by NCT include a little bit more on childcare, but they cost around £120 for a two day workshop wiht no practical elements.

To be honest, being one of those parents whose only exposure to childcare was what I remember from my own childhood and what I have seen in the last 18 months from friends having given birth before me, but essentially muddling through, I would have welcomed the availability of training, but I must admit that having had a look at some books/textbooks I feel i would have been worse off than picking older people (our own parents, but our old style health visitor is good too) brains.

From:

Yes, I know ante-natal classes don't cover it. I'm saying we should provide parenting classes on the same basis, before and after birth.

And why not compulsory? Because we live in a free society and making anything compulsory needs a very, very good reason.

From:

.. Why compulsory. because its as much needed now for new parents as education is for children. If it isn't compulsory (at least for the first time you have a child then the odds are that education establishments will not provide for it because they have no provision made for such things. If it is a compulsory lesson then thing then it will have to be provided for.

From:

Whether it gets provided for or not depends solely on whether it gets funded.

From:

iamnotramphus.livejournal.com

Looking at some of the poor kids I teach who would have been fine if given a decent start in life, I'd vote for it.

From:

mcnazgul.livejournal.com

The only way you could effectively encourage the concept of responsible parenting is to make it entirely free, readily available (more than just the Internet, more like NHSOnLine) and highlight it amid the massmedia on the hour, every hour. Then you might get to those people who need it and they'll assume that Mother State (yes, the same one that gets belittled every time someone complains about freedom) will take care of it all.

Given we can't run a child abuse helpline in this country without massive donations and repeated pleas for extra funding (it's a worthwhile goal but who is going to pay for it?) what chance has our little scheme got?

Mandatory birth control? How do you enforce that? Medically, you'd be looking at contraceptive implants because any other option is just going to go completely wrong. In extreme cases you end up with China and that has all kinds of consequences.

To regulate against reproduction makes it taboo. And what happens then?

Childcare as part of your education? Hell yes. You're supposed to do that playing mummy & daddy. Instead you're being a space cadet, fantasy hero or soldier fighting the infidel/heretic/capitalist peegs and some do that for real in lieu of an actual education. So how do they get by?

Peace out. I need to swim.

From:

jorune.livejournal.com

It's been too long since there was a proper trolling. So much so that is time for some Norwegian. Den har blitt også lang siden vi fikk en lated troll!

From:

mcnazgul.livejournal.com

Ah but 'troll' is credible in Norwegian.

Are you sure that's really what you want?

From:

jorune.livejournal.com

I åm nøt sure. Perhaps this will help.

From:

phyrbyrd.livejournal.com

This is extremely interesting - do you mind if I post this on

childfree?

From:

By all means.

From:

shakalooloo.livejournal.com

Nurture beats Nature, then?

If that's the case, then anyone should be allowed to have children (since their genetic stock is irrelevant), but all resulting offspring should be handed off to special givernment facilities, where people deemed fit to serve as good upbringers can utilise their talents on a greater scale, for a more consistent child-rearing environment.

From:

syntheticbrain.livejournal.com

Similar to the situation described in Ursula K le Guin's book - The Dispossessed

Widely described as one of the best political sf books going. I'd largely agree with that (although I've not read that much sf I'd class political).

From:

I personaly would refuse all chemical/hormonal contraceptive methods. I am funny that way

From:

hedya.livejournal.com

seconded. they tell you is reversible, but I've come across too many stories if women that, having been on hormonal/chemical contraception consistently over years they then find it difficult (>4 yrs) to conceive. Even for the case in point, i.e. in the hypothesis of the need of a licence to become a parent, I would feel it's too great a risk of reducing your chances to conceive having obtained said licence.

From:

ool272.livejournal.com

Punishing bad parenting just makes things worse for the child unless the foster care system gets about a thousand times as much money and willing volunteers than it already has. That isn't going to happen. Regularly taking kids away from parents who are not clearly an actual danger to them would be unpopular beyond words and probably ensure the swift removal from power of the government who did it under a democracy; the media is going to be full of stories of faceless cops physically pulling children away from their weeping mothers. It looks like police state behaviour. Probably it is. (Forced sterilisation definitely is.)

If you advocate this you're in favour of dramatically increasing the control that the state has over people's lives. If you ever have cause to bitch about the government, think twice about that. At the very least the system will fail due to corruption or incompetence in a small minority of cases. I'm not an anarchist, but government is simply too big, too subject to pressures on resources and too full of human beings to operate something like this from a position of uniform wisdom and benevolence.

I think you have to use a carrot, not a stick. Giving perks and state assistance to parents who are prepared to go through a good parenting programme - not a difficult one, but one requiring effort to complete - would seem to be the best version of the idea to me.

From:

mrbear.livejournal.com

I have been saying we need to have parenting licences for years. Fewer little chav bastards 4tmfw.

Comprehensive testing of the couple wanting to spawn to make sure they aren't drooling neanderthals who'll raise another little streetrat that'll go around breaking car windows for fun.

Also, no benefits for couples who get pregnant without a licence.

From:

syntheticbrain.livejournal.com

Hmm. I'm going to pinch bit's of this from Ringworld and bit's from a conversation I had with Ed a year or so ago.

We don't neccesarily need fewer kids, we just need the right sort.

We have a unique ability to observe the process of Universal/Darwinian selection going on around us (superbugs being a good example) and are gifted with foresight yet seem unwilling to combine the two. Procreating should not be considered a right, it is a privilege.

Create a census/IQ test - think SATs. Until you've been through it the mandatory birth control implant stops you procreating. You can choose to take the test early (for instance if you *really* want to get married and start a family at 16) but the majority take it in theier final year of school - think of it as a General Studies that means something.

Set up a truly independant committee with generational deadlines and a remit to make the country like X, where X is the goal your party has been elected to reach, and insulate legally from interference to decide what you are looking for in the next generation. Respondees showing the "merit" sought; intelligence, great emotional maturity or ability to learn; at the required level automatically get the implant removed.

Respondees who are not judged fit, still have more chances. One is to effectively "buy" the right through paying £Y National Insurnace Contributions during your career. If you are lucky enough to have a unNICable income this payment can be made voluntarily. One can choose to "move" such an allocation to a partners account.

Their is a third way to receive the right to breed - the birthright lottery. Tickets are moderately expensive and drawn annually. Since lucky citizens are always handy to have around - more importantly, at least one of their parents actively wishes to have children.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<cue [...] "eugenecist!">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Hmm. I'm going to pinch bit's of this from Ringworld and bit's from a conversation I had with Ed a year or so ago.

We don't neccesarily need fewer kids, we just need the right sort.

We have a unique ability to observe the process of Universal/Darwinian selection going on around us (superbugs being a good example) and are gifted with foresight yet seem unwilling to combine the two. Procreating should not be considered a right, it is a privilege.

Create a census/IQ test - think SATs. Until you've been through it the mandatory birth control implant stops you procreating. You can choose to take the test early (for instance if you *really* want to get married and start a family at 16) but the majority take it in theier final year of school - think of it as a General Studies that means something.

Set up a truly independant committee with generational deadlines and a remit to make the country like X, where X is the goal your party has been elected to reach, and insulate legally from interference to decide what you are looking for in the next generation. Respondees showing the "merit" sought; intelligence, great emotional maturity or ability to learn; at the required level automatically get the implant removed.

Respondees who are not judged fit, still have more chances. One is to effectively "buy" the right through paying £Y National Insurnace Contributions during your career. If you are lucky enough to have a unNICable income this payment can be made voluntarily. One can choose to "move" such an allocation to a partners account.

Their is a third way to receive the right to breed - the birthright lottery. Tickets are moderately expensive and drawn annually. Since lucky citizens are always handy to have around - more importantly, at least one of their parents actively wishes to have children.

<cue cries of "Eugenecist!" here>

While I don't think anything like this is workable (yet, I reckon if Murdoch of the Evil Empire set it up as a long term goal of his media machine something like it could happen in a generation or so) I am not entirely sure that it would be a bad idea.

* A test I suggested to Ed was based on the fact that the one constant of the vast changes in society over the last hundred years is the amount of information people handle on a daily basis. Given several ways of picking up a smattering of a synthetic language the student has to answer questions about audio/video/text streams.

From:

dj-rws.livejournal.com

Such.. big.. mine field... resist the urg to take over the world and make it a better place ;)

From: