Defining Who is a Parent

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:06 pm

Who are your Daddies? Who are your Mommies? Defining Who is a Parent | Care2 Healthy & Green Living

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:44 am

We place too much emphasis on blood, imo. Negligent idiots are given carte blanche to do as they wish with tiny humans simply because they share DNA, while responsible people who provide love, guidance, and protection to them are left out in the cold. Sure, the ideal is that the bio-parents are also the people who provide the parenting, but when biology and behavior don't coincide, the title of "real" parent should go to the one displaying the behavior. The kid will be better for it.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:20 pm

Accountable;1342496 wrote: We place too much emphasis on blood, imo. Negligent idiots are given carte blanche to do as they wish with tiny humans simply because they share DNA, while responsible people who provide love, guidance, and protection to them are left out in the cold. Sure, the ideal is that the bio-parents are also the people who provide the parenting, but when biology and behavior don't coincide, the title of "real" parent should go to the one displaying the behavior. The kid will be better for it.

I have a set of radical beliefs concerning parenting. However, I believe we need to reclaim our rights first.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:12 pm

Such as?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:35 am

I think that a couple should have training, for instance, if they are to raise a family and even acquire a certificate. It is clear that raising a family isn't a natural talent for everyone. There should also be a requirement for a certain level of income to demonstrate the financial ability to raise a family.

This might seem radical and may even go against what is considered a person's natural right. On the other hand, I think we should consider the unborn child's rights first.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:18 am

OpenMind;1342578 wrote: I think that a couple should have training, for instance, if they are to raise a family and even acquire a certificate. It is clear that raising a family isn't a natural talent for everyone. There should also be a requirement for a certain level of income to demonstrate the financial ability to raise a family.

This might seem radical and may even go against what is considered a person's natural right. On the other hand, I think we should consider the unborn child's rights first.
It's not exactly buying a car. Women get pregnant without even expecting to, even when taking precautions. Would you take a child away from bio-parents who didn't study enough for the final exam and failed the course? Where would those children go?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:18 am

If we are going down economical lines here then ....."for every slave - they had a king for an ancestor, for every king - he had an ancestor who was a slave.."

But for this thread where I dont' believe the topic is of economics.......those who created the child are the parents. The rest are just subsicturies. <---believe I've spelt that wrong.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:20 am

Accountable;1342585 wrote: It's not exactly buying a car. Women get pregnant without even expecting to, even when taking precautions. Would you take a child away from bio-parents who didn't study enough for the final exam and failed the course? Where would those children go?

I love your little fruedian slips ...."Women get pregnant"................ummm no.......... women become pregnant after sex with a man........man being the operative word here because otherwise we are all victims of emmaculate conceptions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:45 am

fuzzywuzzy;1342587 wrote: If we are going down economical lines here then ....."for every slave - they had a king for an ancestor, for every king - he had an ancestor who was a slave.."

But for this thread where I dont' believe the topic is of economics.......those who created the child are the parents. The rest are just subsicturies. So adoptive parents, foster parents ... the ones who provide the love, discipline, structure ... the ones that help the child develop into a functional adult .... they don't really count for much, huh?

fuzzywuzzy;1342588 wrote: I love your little fruedian slips ...."Women get pregnant"................ummm no.......... women become pregnant after sex with a man........man being the operative word here because otherwise we are all victims of emmaculate conceptions.I have a feeling you'd get ruffled feathers over this unless I typed a paragraph of stipulation every time I mentioned pregnancy. I haven't the time nor inclination. Infer whatever you wish.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:59 am

Infer whatever you wish.

and there's the excuse.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:12 am

fuzzywuzzy;1342592 wrote: and there's the excuse.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
I don't understand your post, but thought I'd take a mo' to show a freudian slip or two:

fuzzywuzzy;1342448 wrote: Some actually do become pregnant.
fuzzywuzzy;1323520 wrote: he was supposed to be the priest in his family and got my mum pregnant
fuzzywuzzy;1274886 wrote: if I can get pregnant
fuzzywuzzy;1274871 wrote: I have two years while I study to get pregnant
fuzzywuzzy;1270835 wrote: you got me pregnant

Don't project your issues on me, please.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:56 am

Accountable;1342585 wrote: It's not exactly buying a car. Women get pregnant without even expecting to, even when taking precautions. Would you take a child away from bio-parents who didn't study enough for the final exam and failed the course? Where would those children go?

I did say that my belief is radical and your response is the one I would expect in the main to what is likely to be a very emotive subject.

There are many children who are raised well and with good chances to succeed as adults. But there are also far too many children ( and in this category, 1 child is too many in my opinion) who are raised in impoverished, sub-standard conditions, or have become orphans, or are badly treated.

So, yes, if a child was born to an unlicensed parent under my scheme, then that child would be taken away and fostered with parents who would give the child a better chance in life.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:48 pm

I am concerned about the increase of births to couples who have made no commitment to each other. You've perhaps heard the terms "baby mama" and "baby daddy". I do not understand this because of the availability of birth control. There is no responsibilty to the possible consequences of the sex act. What effect does this have on this new generation of babies?

I do, ofcourse, realize there are responsible single parents who do provide for their children. In spite of being "low-income", their children are loved and nurtured. They have support from the parent, grandparents and other relatives, neighbors, and, eventually, teachers. These parents make sacrifices for their child, be it working, or paying child support, or doing without so their child will have.

A parent is the most important person in a child's life.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:23 pm

OpenMind;1342617 wrote: I did say that my belief is radical and your response is the one I would expect in the main to what is likely to be a very emotive subject.

There are many children who are raised well and with good chances to succeed as adults. But there are also far too many children ( and in this category, 1 child is too many in my opinion) who are raised in impoverished, sub-standard conditions, or have become orphans, or are badly treated.

So, yes, if a child was born to an unlicensed parent under my scheme, then that child would be taken away and fostered with parents who would give the child a better chance in life.

OM, Are you saying that poor people shouldn't have babies ? Just because a child is impoverished doesn't mean it's treated badly or has more of a struggle .

I think it comes down to moral values. I'm not sure what the trend is in the USA or Britain ......but more and more people are leaving childbirth later and later under the pretence that they will be better off financially. Leaving those around them to care for their children whilst they continue with careers etc. Our own parents didn't think this way, They got married, had a baby and if they couldn't some young woman would provide them with one. These days it seems that if you have a baby and their is some kind of financial problem you are a bad person because science and medicine have put up a cure for society's unwanted unsightly people. Abortion, contraception and adoption if not acquired in time under Om's scheme would basically make a person public enemy number one, and their punishment would be to be found unfit and their babies taken away from them. Western society has been down this road once before and it has not turned out well.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:50 pm

There's something wrong with the society, not the people, when the average person can't afford to care for their children.

Most of the really messed up people I've met have come from fairly well off families so I don't see finances as the main problem with child rearing. I'm not against people having to take a course before becoming a parent but, if it's for the betterment of society, it should be a free course. The problem with that is that society, or the people in it, can't agree on how to raise children the best way. Dr Spock messed up entire generations.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:03 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1342646 wrote: OM, Are you saying that poor people shouldn't have babies ? Just because a child is impoverished doesn't mean it's treated badly or has more of a struggle .

I think it comes down to moral values. I'm not sure what the trend is in the USA or Britain ......but more and more people are leaving childbirth later and later under the pretence that they will be better off financially. Leaving those around them to care for their children whilst they continue with careers etc. Our own parents didn't think this way, They got married, had a baby and if they couldn't some young woman would provide them with one. These days it seems that if you have a baby and their is some kind of financial problem you are a bad person because science and medicine have put up a cure for society's unwanted unsightly people. Abortion, contraception and adoption if not acquired in time under Om's scheme would basically make a person public enemy number one, and their punishment would be to be found unfit and their babies taken away from them. Western society has been down this road once before and it has not turned out well.I agree, generally.

OpenMind;1342617 wrote: I did say that my belief is radical and your response is the one I would expect in the main to what is likely to be a very emotive subject.

There are many children who are raised well and with good chances to succeed as adults. But there are also far too many children ( and in this category, 1 child is too many in my opinion) who are raised in impoverished, sub-standard conditions, or have become orphans, or are badly treated.

So, yes, if a child was born to an unlicensed parent under my scheme, then that child would be taken away and fostered with parents who would give the child a better chance in life.Mmmmmmmmm ...... I'm not wise enough to know what should be done, but this one doesn't taste right.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:20 pm

OM, you sound like you're speaking out of bitterness with specific cases in mind. Such plans as you suggest count on the people making the decisions being well balanced, compassionate individuals. Every single one of them.

What you're saying might be helpful in specific circumstances but think about what happens if you legislate something that needs wisdom and compassion. It becomes a matter of law, cold and 9-5 i-can't-wait-for-friday mentality full of people who train for the job for the right reasons and get so numb they think everyone is hideous and insane after a few years. Parenting licenses can't come down to who is better at written exams or who schmoozes best at an interview.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:26 pm

koan;1342656 wrote: There's something wrong with the society, not the people, when the average person can't afford to care for their children.

Most of the really messed up people I've met have come from fairly well off families so I don't see finances as the main problem with child rearing. I'm not against people having to take a course before becoming a parent but, if it's for the betterment of society, it should be a free course. The problem with that is that society, or the people in it, can't agree on how to raise children the best way. Dr Spock messed up entire generations.I think the average person can afford to care for their children, at least in the countries of the people involved in this thread. I completely agree with the second paragraph except for the phrase "having to." What if a person refuses? Would they be forced to have an abortion? The free course should be offered, maybe even mandated if they are to take advantage of any gov't program or prenatal care. I could support that.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:38 pm

I got thinking that there is a free course in Canada but now I'm thinking of it, I think it's a course for divorcing parents.

I'm just against legislating anything more than absolutely essential, being all anti-government and everything. I do see why some people are concerned though I don't think more laws are ultimately the solution to any social problem.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:27 am

OpenMind;1342617 wrote: I did say that my belief is radical and your response is the one I would expect in the main to what is likely to be a very emotive subject.

There are many children who are raised well and with good chances to succeed as adults. But there are also far too many children ( and in this category, 1 child is too many in my opinion) who are raised in impoverished, sub-standard conditions, or have become orphans, or are badly treated.

So, yes, if a child was born to an unlicensed parent under my scheme, then that child would be taken away and fostered with parents who would give the child a better chance in life.

hmmm lets go back a bit though you're not legisslating against born babies to unliscenced parents .....in the end you're legislating over unprotected sex. That's what it comes down to ...because babies are born from unprotected sex that's exactly what you're legislating against. So ...now we have to think of who has unprotected sex and in what circumstances will they do this ....and in turn you're legislating against human emotion and feelings and psychology. I'm seeing "1984" here.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:30 am

OH and I am cheating here because I debated this in high school . why a Catholic girls school is debating this topic is beyond me but ...anyhoo.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:16 pm

OpenMind;1342617 wrote: I did say that my belief is radical and your response is the one I would expect in the main to what is likely to be a very emotive subject.

There are many children who are raised well and with good chances to succeed as adults. But there are also far too many children ( and in this category, 1 child is too many in my opinion) who are raised in impoverished, sub-standard conditions, or have become orphans, or are badly treated.

So, yes, if a child was born to an unlicensed parent under my scheme, then that child would be taken away and fostered with parents who would give the child a better chance in life.

I think you'd better talk to people who were taken away from their parents as a child and brought up in institutions and foster homes. From my reading they did not find it a better chance in life. An action of last resort, not the automatic response to an unplanned pregnancy.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:57 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1342646 wrote: OM, Are you saying that poor people shouldn't have babies ? Just because a child is impoverished doesn't mean it's treated badly or has more of a struggle .

I think it comes down to moral values. I'm not sure what the trend is in the USA or Britain ......but more and more people are leaving childbirth later and later under the pretence that they will be better off financially. Leaving those around them to care for their children whilst they continue with careers etc. Our own parents didn't think this way, They got married, had a baby and if they couldn't some young woman would provide them with one. These days it seems that if you have a baby and their is some kind of financial problem you are a bad person because science and medicine have put up a cure for society's unwanted unsightly people. Abortion, contraception and adoption if not acquired in time under Om's scheme would basically make a person public enemy number one, and their punishment would be to be found unfit and their babies taken away from them. Western society has been down this road once before and it has not turned out well.

This is what I actually wrote:

"I think that a couple should have training, for instance, if they are to raise a family and even acquire a certificate. It is clear that raising a family isn't a natural talent for everyone. There should also be a requirement for a certain level of income to demonstrate the financial ability to raise a family.

This might seem radical and may even go against what is considered a person's natural right. On the other hand, I think we should consider the unborn child's rights first."

Surely, being able to feed and clothe the children is more important than the feelings of the parents.