The Right to Parent
I’ve often heard it proposed that all prospective parents should be required to take a test to become eligible for procreation, and some should not be allowed to at all. Pro-testers site instances of child neglect and outright stupidity or ignorance on the parents’ part, and also types of people who they believe should never be allowed to procreate, such as people who have no social or relational skills whatsoever. Anti-testers site the fact that not everyone who becomes one chooses to be a parent, and so a test would solve nothing. People have a God-given right to become parents should they choose that path.
My query: your thoughts. Is this all a joke, or do you really think that a parenting test would solve some of the parenting problems in society?
Sami H.
Tags: children, Family, joke, kids, parent, parenthood, parenting, Society, test
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
June 9, 2008 at 11:40 pm
How would one, persay, rate the “testers” as 100% the best at parenting? Would it be like every other test that you can study for? Or would it be a hands on test? What would be the norm?
I have a tendency to view that maybe, just maybe at least a few morals from the religious community, as well as the political arena would get into a heated debate upon it.
In the long run, although it sounds like a good thing, would most likely be a severely crippling test. How about, instead of a “parenting test”, make “parenting classes” mandatory for both mother, AND father.
-Sean
June 10, 2008 at 10:22 am
One method of testing might be just like any class you’d take. Study, instruction, hands-on practice of basic care. At the end of the course, you are graded on your performance and grasp of the basic concepts of child care.
We did a project in my Independent Living class where we received and took home a life-like infant doll for the weekend. It had a computer inside it that tracked and monitored the care it received, including whether it was clothed, how it was touched or handled, how/if you comforted it when it cried occasionally, in the middle of the night (the temperament varied from doll to doll), you fed and burped it, changed its diaper, gave it all the care you would give a living child. On Monday, you gave the doll to the teacher, and she had a machine that gave a read-out on the care the child received, and you were graded according to that.
Now this experience doesn’t take into account the emotional experiences the parents have, but it’s a relatively accurate reflection of the responsibilities parents have when raising an infant.
I’d say a placement test would be beneficial to determine the pace or length of course that the parents are required to take, or whether they should have to take a course at all.
Now, this is just an idea. There would be a lot of opposition to this concept. That’s what this post is for, to debate whether this would be beneficial or just cause more problems.
June 12, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“My query: your thoughts. Is this all a joke, or do you really think that a parenting test would solve some of the parenting problems in society?”
Yikes…..where to begin? First, I’d go with “joke” regarding your question. However, I do not think this issue should be taken lightly.
The prospect of state-managed family planning initiatives is, in fact, a very serious threat to our free society. The government has no role to play in deciding who may or may not have children. Just as with other issues of personal liberty, it is not the responsiblity of citizens to prove they should have children. In fact, the burden is on government to prove they should not. Consenting adults choose to have children and they raise them as they see fit. If at any time their negligent or abusive actions endanger the children, the state may step in to remove the children from a dangerous situation (this process requires the state to produce evidence of danger or negligence in the household, despite what Texas authorities think).
Some might argue that government parenting “tests” would eliminate the messy parent vs. state custody battles or save potential children from damaging family situations. The negatives that come from this blatant assault on personal freedom and choice, however, far outweigh any percieved benefits from such a program.
The family unit is a sacred and fundamental building block of a free and secure Republic. Governmental intrusion into the home should be the exception rather than the institutional rule.
November 4, 2008 at 3:11 am
Well. First of all I think this is a horrifying premise, but I’ll get to that in a minute.
I hope you all understand that there is virtually no way to enforce this. If our legislatures are dumb enough to impose this, (and make no mistake some are), we will simply see another situation like the war on drugs where billions of taxpayer dollars are spent trying to suppress a basic human instinct.
What exactly would the government do to prevent people who do not pass the test from procreating. Hate to break the news, but sex is a physical and biological desire that all humans are going to indulge in (assuming they can find someone else who wants to), and all the birth control pills you can feed these people is not going to completely eradicate the possibility of a few unwanted pregnancies, not to mention all those who will willingly get pregnant in spite of the law.
What then? Do you impose mandatory, state funded abortions? I’m sure that will go over well with folks. Do you risk the possibility that your test may be flawed and let the “officially inept” parents raise their kid anyway. To enforce any law, you need some repercussions for the offenders, and I certainly hope you’re not suggesting we crowd our prisons with those who simply forgot to slide a condom on one drunken night.
Aside from the logistical problems with such a proposal, you still have the even bigger question of whether or not we feel comfortable giving the government that kind of power.
I for one would be the first to agree that most parents have no business holding that title. However, I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the government (state or federal) to make that judgment. Unfortunately we have to come to grips with the fact that in a free, and democratic, society there are, and always will be, people who exhibit actions and behaviors that we, ourselves, disagree with. But as long as that behavior does not harm or infringe on others we have an obligation to tolerate it. We may not agree with the methods or environment that certain people may choose to raise their children, but as long as it poses no threat to the health and safety of the child, we have neither the obligation, nor the right to impose on that family.
The government has no right to legislate on the private lives of its citizens. Whether it’s owning a gun, or smoking a joint , the responsibility lies with the individual to make his/her own choice based on what they feel is best for them. Allowing the government to make this decision for you isn’t freedom, it’s fascism.