Should parents have licenses?

Waynehead · **Posted:** January 10th, 2007, 8:13 pm

thorny wrote:

that's true, but 2 severely mentally challenged people won't make very good parents.

Think about it this way, two severely mentally challenged people, will either be in an institute to help them, with family members, not having ***. This whole license wouldn't solve anything, just because a parent passed a test has no effect on what that parent will do to there child, it will solve nothing.

Adbot · **Posted:** January 10th, 2007, 8:13 pm

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** January 10th, 2007, 8:30 pm

If you really think about it.. there's no one right way to be a parent. Some of the best parents could be the poorest people in the world. If someone is mentally challenged, that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of loving and caring for their child. People who are disabled can get jobs like everyone else and I feel that rather than being shoved off into an institution, they should be integrated into society and treated like the citizens they are. Licensing parents is voluntarily putting a wedge between citizens.

Hel · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 4:08 am

Zoolite wrote:

Hel wrote:

I've been thinking this for a long, long time.

If you live in britain, you've seen what charvs are like. They get pregnant at 13 and have like 12 kids, get given a house and an income by the government and do nothing with their life. They don't bring the children up at all having had no decent parental figure in their own lives, so they see nothing wrong with this and their children see nothing wrong with this.

People should have to pass a test to be able to have children. Whenever they want to have a child, past say 18. People below 18 should still be in education. If you can't vote, you can't raise a child. If they fail the test, the foetus (if there is already one there) should be aborted, with parental protests ignored.

first off their called "chavs" and I think your taking it a little far by saying they have 12 kids...

This whole test idea is ridiculous, if you fail you have to have an abortion, you realize that an unborn baby is still a living thing and I'm pretty sure the government isn't going to make people abort pregnancy's. Abortion is the mothers choice it and you cannot force it upon someone no matter who you are.

Even if this did somehow happen think about the number of people are actually going to care if they have the stupid license or not. People don't really think much about breaking the law, think of the amount of people without TV licenses or driving cars without a license. It'll never happen so why bother thinking about it.

Chav is the term coined by the media. Charv(a) is the northern term they copied it off. You, and everyone else southern, is merely being misinformed by the media. But i wont get into that now.

Also, you're all far too liberal. People don't deserve anything unless they show that they do. Stop being so socialist. Socialism has never worked and it never will.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 5:07 am

Hel wrote:

Zoolite wrote:

Hel wrote:

I've been thinking this for a long, long time.

If you live in britain, you've seen what charvs are like. They get pregnant at 13 and have like 12 kids, get given a house and an income by the government and do nothing with their life. They don't bring the children up at all having had no decent parental figure in their own lives, so they see nothing wrong with this and their children see nothing wrong with this.

People should have to pass a test to be able to have children. Whenever they want to have a child, past say 18. People below 18 should still be in education. If you can't vote, you can't raise a child. If they fail the test, the foetus (if there is already one there) should be aborted, with parental protests ignored.

first off their called "chavs" and I think your taking it a little far by saying they have 12 kids...

This whole test idea is ridiculous, if you fail you have to have an abortion, you realize that an unborn baby is still a living thing and I'm pretty sure the government isn't going to make people abort pregnancy's. Abortion is the mothers choice it and you cannot force it upon someone no matter who you are.

Even if this did somehow happen think about the number of people are actually going to care if they have the stupid license or not. People don't really think much about breaking the law, think of the amount of people without TV licenses or driving cars without a license. It'll never happen so why bother thinking about it.

Chav is the term coined by the media. Charv(a) is the northern term they copied it off. You, and everyone else southern, is merely being misinformed by the media. But i wont get into that now.

Also, you're all far too liberal. People don't deserve anything unless they show that they do. Stop being so socialist. Socialism has never worked and it never will.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Chavs originated from chatham.

Chathams right down in the south east pocket of England. The only reason you prounce it like that, is because those up north, cannot speak properly. :lol:

I must defend my southerner honour111

Hel · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 5:12 am

Charvs originated in Newcastle. If that Bogroll guy still posts he should be able to back me up, what with him living there, and me living close.

Also, the English have never defeated Scotland in a war by themselves. Even the time when the Scots joined with England to make Britain, the English king was Scottish.

Scottish pride@@@@@@@

AHEM:

Quote:

The town has recently become associated with chavs, a word taken from the Romany word chav meaning 'boy', describing a set of cheap fashions and taste associated with white, working-class young people, and commonly thought to be an abbreviation of "Chatham Average", or an approximation of "Chatham Girl". Chatham is often referred to "Chavham". The word has also been in use for several generations to describe a person on the dole. To be "on the dole" was to be "on the chat" or "on the chav". It was a local joke that people from Chatham dressed a certain way and were frequently on the dole, which led to the term "Chatham Chav". Chav fashion includes Burberry clothing and white tracksuits.

Ignore the "has recently" remembering this was written sometime ago but as you can see, they developed in Chatham and the place is still over run with them, i see no such proof when i look up newcastle nor did i see it as majorly bad when i went up their either. I win11!!.

donahey · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 5:34 am

I agree, you should have to, atleast be able to afford to support a child before you decide to have one.

thorny wrote:

some certain body parts can make a baby.

Cut it off *ouch*

jk

Adbot · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 5:34 am

Pat · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 1:56 pm

imagine this. 2 loving parents with the greatest and biggest hearts in the world have a baby because they love each other too. but the catch is, they don't have enough money. they live in a rented trailer that they're behind payment on and the mom's boss keeps making a pass on her paycheck. Dad's salary isn't nearly enough to support all of them. What do they do? they can't do anything. They desperately try to find 3rd, 4th, and 5th jobs and barely have anytime to care for the baby. Still they barely make enough to support their current lifestyle. Then the baby gets sick and the family doesn't have insurance because they're too poor. The baby gets taken away by the government, leaving the parents shattered, heartbroken, and broken.

This is just one situation that would be solved by these licenses.

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 4:21 pm

thorny wrote:

imagine this. 2 loving parents with the greatest and biggest hearts in the world have a baby because they love each other too. but the catch is, they don't have enough money. they live in a rented trailer that they're behind payment on and the mom's boss keeps making a pass on her paycheck. Dad's salary isn't nearly enough to support all of them. What do they do? they can't do anything. They desperately try to find 3rd, 4th, and 5th jobs and barely have anytime to care for the baby. Still they barely make enough to support their current lifestyle. Then the baby gets sick and the family doesn't have insurance because they're too poor. The baby gets taken away by the government, leaving the parents shattered, heartbroken, and broken.

^ That'd be a good scenario for adopting universal insurance in your country, but not parental licenses.

Pat · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 5:58 pm

universal insurance?

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 6:17 pm

Universal insurance. Providing universal health insurance coverage to all citizens.

Pat · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 6:53 pm

well, that's the not the point. The kid can have anything happen to him, or the parent really. The point is that they can't afford the child, the kid grows up in a bad enviroment. And what if mom and dad lose their jobs? What happens then?

I'm sure universal health coverage will solve many problems, but that's not the issue here.

connor10238 · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 8:09 pm

thorny wrote:

imagine this. 2 loving parents with the greatest and biggest hearts in the world have a baby because they love each other too. but the catch is, they don't have enough money. they live in a rented trailer that they're behind payment on and the mom's boss keeps making a pass on her paycheck. Dad's salary isn't nearly enough to support all of them. What do they do? they can't do anything. They desperately try to find 3rd, 4th, and 5th jobs and barely have anytime to care for the baby. Still they barely make enough to support their current lifestyle. Then the baby gets sick and the family doesn't have insurance because they're too poor. The baby gets taken away by the government, leaving the parents shattered, heartbroken, and broken.

This is just one situation that would be solved by these licenses.

It wouldn't solve anything! It would just break people's hearts when their children get taken away!

Pat · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 9:22 pm

if they didn't want the kid taken away, then they shouldn't have had a baby they can't support.

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 10:36 pm

thorny wrote:

if they didn't want the kid taken away, then they shouldn't have had a baby they can't support.

This is really a downhill argument, to be honest. You can't tell poor people that they can't have children because they've not got enough money. Some of the most influential people in the world have come from dire circumstances. If their parents hadn't had them, our world would be different. It's not how much money you have, it's how you spend it. I think a good parent is a person who puts their child's needs before theirs. It's not about having rich parents, it's about having responsible and loving ones.

Pat · **Posted:** January 11th, 2007, 10:44 pm

I understand your point but in your case, the parents can actually bring up the child and let it grow up without having to sell it for prostitution, work at age 8, etc. It's true that great people have risen from poverty. But it's also true that people turn to drugs, gangs, and mobs to make money.