Should a license be required to have children? (1 Viewer)

[FallingPianos]

I think the simple answer is that they are not being fed at home because they no longer have to be fed at home! Somewhere along the line some probably well intentioned boob felt it was a good idea to have schools provide breakfast!!!!!!! Back when I was in school they didn't serve breakfast and parents fed their damn kids. I don't recall hordes of hungry kids looking all malnourished. I also don't recall any nation wide crisis that featured malnourished children and discussions on whether or not schools should provide free breakfast. The free breakfast just showed up one day and the line for it came the next. The only food crisis I've heard of amoung our youth is the idea that they're overweight. So yeah the free breakfast is redundant and completely unnecessary in our schools. And even if the service was necessary it's not something the schools should be doing. The fact of the matter is most of the kids who receive free breakfast would be fed at home if their parents had to assume responsibility for doing so. Since they now have the option of passing that responsibilty on to our "daddy" like government they do.

I think such services are necessary for those that really need them, but schools arent the best place to have them. I would rather funding that is used to provide those free breakfast's and lunches be put towards the food stamp program and other similar programs.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I think the simple answer is that they are not being fed at home because they no longer have to be fed at home! Somewhere along the line some probably well intentioned boob felt it was a good idea to have schools provide breakfast!!!!!!! Back when I was in school they didn't serve breakfast and parents fed their damn kids. I don't recall hordes of hungry kids looking all malnourished. I also don't recall any nation wide crisis that featured malnourished children and discussions on whether or not schools should provide free breakfast.

Also in April 1968, the Citizens' Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition in the United States publicly revealed the findings o its nation-wide study, in a paperback book, Hunger USA. The Board consisted of selected representation from medicine, law universities, foundations, social action groups, organized labor, and religion. "We have found concrete evidence of chronic hunger and malnutrition in every part of the United States where we have held hearings or conducted field trips, "the Board reported, estimating that at least 10 million persons were suffering from hunger and malnutrition.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_7.htm

You were saying?

The free breakfast just showed up one day and the line for it came the next. The only food crisis I've heard of amoung our youth is the idea that they're overweight. So yeah the free breakfast is redundant and completely unnecessary in our schools.

Just because the school administration did not announce to the student body at large that many of the students were malnourished, doesn't mean that wasn't the justification for the program. In other words, just because you didn't know about it didn't mean it didn't exist.

Believe me; schools do not create programs for no reason. In terms of educational practices, the programs may or may not solve the problem; education can be complicated. But feeding kids is not. Give them food. Problem solved.

And even if the service was necessary it's not something the schools should be doing. The fact of the matter is most of the kids who receive free breakfast would be fed at home if their parents had to assume responsibility for doing so. Since they now have the option of passing that responsibilty on to our "daddy" like government they do.

But the parents are not assuming the responsibility, not in every case. Those kids are hungry, however much we may wish parents would take care of the problem. Hungry kids should be fed.

In terms of school being a bad place for that, why? What's wrong with kids eating at school? And where else does every kid in America, even the hungry ones, go every day?

 

[talloulou]

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_7.htm

You were saying?

Well I guess it's possible that I'm wrong and ""hunger" is a real epidemic for children in the US. However that link was from a study in 1968 before I was born so perhaps there was more of an epidemic then than now. I just don't see children in the US looking malnourished and hungry the way you see children in other countries who are clearly starving. Most kids I see look healthy with an alarming percentage looking like they eat too much.

Just because the school administration did not announce to the student body at large that many of the students were malnourished, doesn't mean that wasn't the justification for the program. In other words, just because you didn't know about it didn't mean it didn't exist.

Maybe but then again perhaps there is "hungry" and then there is really "hungry." You know like how you can be poor but own 2 cars and 2 tvs vs being poor and living in a cardboard box in Mexico.

Believe me; schools do not create programs for no reason.

I'm a PTA mom and spend tons of time at my childrens school volunteering and what not. Believe me schools love to create programs for no reason.

In terms of educational practices, the programs may or may not solve the problem; education can be complicated. But feeding kids is not. Give them food. Problem solved.

Well I will agree there is absolutely no reason for children to be hungry. Certainly there is not a food shortage that would justify starving kids. I just honestly haven't seen many kids who looked like they were starving. And our breakfast program is fairly new. It wasn't set up in 1968.

But the parents are not assuming the responsibility, not in every case. Those kids are hungry, however much we may wish parents would take care of the problem. Hungry kids should be fed.

I agree.

In terms of school being a bad place for that, why?

School is a place of learning. Lately it's become somewhat of a welfare program/parent. That takes away from the time and effort that can be spent on its original purpose.....learning. Having schools focus all their effort and money on learning would probably be more beneficial in the long run. Now if the kids were literally too hungry to learn I might agree schools should feed them but again I haven't seen evidence of that.

What's wrong with kids eating at school? And where else does every kid in America, even the hungry ones, go every day?

There are already social welfare programs in place to help families feed their children. There also local charities in addition to the welfare programs. Schools should not be focusing their time, money, or resources on "breakfast" in my opinion.

 

[Monkey Mind]

Believe me; schools do not create programs for no reason.

:rofl LMFAO! That was a good one...

In terms of educational practices, the programs may or may not solve the problem; education can be complicated. But feeding kids is not. Give them food. Problem solved.

Nutrition is not so simple as you say. Kids in this country are getting progressively fatter and more unhealthy. Herding them into a school cafeteria and feeding them slop twice a day instead of once is not going to improve the situation. I've seen the school menus, and they are nothing but a recipe for every degenerative disease plaguing America.

But the parents are not assuming the responsibility, not in every case. Those kids are hungry, however much we may wish parents would take care of the problem. Hungry kids should be fed.

Child neglect is a crime. There are already laws and government entities in place to deal with the situation you describe. Let them do their jobs, and spend education money on education, not useless entitlement programs.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think the problem with an idea like this is that people forget that laws are only written and enforced by men.

I can think of a number of genetic traits I'd like to select against, and a number of categories of people I just think shouldn't be allowed to breed... but who am I going to trust to enforce those laws? How do I prevent them from being applied against me, or against people I want to breed, or against some new and beneficial mutation?

Let people decide when and with whom they wish to breed, and give them the choice of keeping their offspring or leaving them on hillsides. (One-time choice.) And if irresponsible people keep breeding damaged children... so be it.

You can always kill them later.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_7.htm

You were saying?


Just because the school administration did not announce to the student body at large that many of the students were malnourished, doesn't mean that wasn't the justification for the program. In other words, just because you didn't know about it didn't mean it didn't exist.

Believe me; schools do not create programs for no reason. In terms of educational practices, the programs may or may not solve the problem; education can be complicated. But feeding kids is not. Give them food. Problem solved.


But the parents are not assuming the responsibility, not in every case. Those kids are hungry, however much we may wish parents would take care of the problem. Hungry kids should be fed.

In terms of school being a bad place for that, why? What's wrong with kids eating at school? And where else does every kid in America, even the hungry ones, go every day?

You nailed this CoffeeSaint. In posts that disagree with children having breakfast at school, I see a lot of circular reasoning. 'Let the parents take care of it'. 'But they're not.' 'Well, if you feed them at school, then the parents won't have to.' 'So fix the problem, how?' 'Let the parents take care of it.' 'But they're not.' And so on. See where this is going?

In a perfect world, parents will do their jobs and take care of their children. In this non-perfect world, many parents do not or can not. Should children, who have no ability to provide for themselves, be made to suffer? Charities are fine and dandy, but they are not required to provide. Under these programs, the govenment is. Besides, children are already at school, why force them to trek elsewhere?

 

[Purple]

In a perfect world, parents will do their jobs and take care of their children. In this non-perfect world, many parents do not or can not. Should children, who have no ability to provide for themselves, be made to suffer? Charities are fine and dandy, but they are not required to provide. Under these programs, the govenment is. Besides, children are already at school, why force them to trek elsewhere?

Very well said and very true.

 

[Wham]

The answer is absolutely...YES!

You have to have a license to drive a car or go fishing/hunting. There is absolutely no way that the above actions warrant a license and child bearing does not. Why is it that it takes years to adopt a baby because of all the screening, but two unfit parents can make a child of there own no questions asked?

 

[DeeJayH]

The answer is absolutely...YES!

You have to have a license to drive a car or go fishing/hunting. There is absolutely no way that the above actions warrant a license and child bearing does not. Why is it that it takes years to adopt a baby because of all the screening, but two unfit parents can make a child of there own no questions asked?

:2rofll:
thats actually a good point

 

[FallingPianos]

Why is it that it takes years to adopt a baby because of all the screening, but two unfit parents can make a child of there own no questions asked?

supply and demand. there are far more parents out there seeking to adopt a newborn infant then newborn infants available for adoption.

 

[DeeJayH]

supply and demand. there are far more parents out there seeking to adopt a newborn infant then newborn infants available for adoption.

achoo

sorry, but i am alergic to Bu11sh1t

first of all, that may only apply to the white babies :3oops:
secondly, the parents are not just takinga number and waiting
they are being interviewed and investigated before approval
and c. the extensive work done to adopt does make it seem reasonable that parents might be required to do the same, before becoming parents themselves

i am opposed to licensing on its face, but this adoption twist did raise an eyebrow and has me thinking

 

[talloulou]

The answer is absolutely...YES!

You have to have a license to drive a car or go fishing/hunting. There is absolutely no way that the above actions warrant a license and child bearing does not. Why is it that it takes years to adopt a baby because of all the screening, but two unfit parents can make a child of there own no questions asked?

The fishing, hunting, and driving licenses are a way to keep track of who is fishing, hunting, and driving. It's also a way to make money so the states can pay for roads and maintain parks, rivers, and streams, ect.....

No one is denied a license for any of this stuff unless they are somehow illegal age or had their license revoked for irresponsibility. You can have your children taken away for irresponsibility as well.

But there is no way the state or federal government could tell certain people they weren't fit for breeding without them having commited a crime and even then it's pretty iffy.

In china the government tries to control breeding and as a result female babies are often abandoned or killed. Now they have too many men and the government is trying to fix that situation. :rofl

This is a recklessly stupid idea.

 

[talloulou]

achoo

sorry, but i am alergic to Bu11sh1t

first of all, that may only apply to the white babies :3oops:

There is a shortage of healthy infants of every color! Not just whites.

 

[FallingPianos]

first of all, that may only apply to the white babies.

actually, i've heard that as well, but have been unable to find any information on how true that actually is. I would be extremely interested if you knew of any.

the parents are not just takinga number and waiting. they are being interviewed and investigated before approval

when there are 40 parents wanting to adopt one child, it only makes sense that the agency will interview and investigate the parents to bring that number down.

the extensive work done to adopt does make it seem reasonable that parents might be required to do the same, before becoming parents themselves

the extensive work is done because it can be. agencies are much more selective about who can adopt a healthy newborn infant, then who can adopt an 8 year old child out of foster care.

 

[26 X World Champs]

It would be nice if we could somehow convince unfit (either mentally or economically) not to breed but the chances of such a system becoming arbitrary is high-not worth the dangers.

What a horribly prejudiced thing to write! Economic stature does not buy you the right to have children and comments like that are the essence of racism in America.

:thumbdown

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Well I guess it's possible that I'm wrong and ""hunger" is a real epidemic for children in the US. However that link was from a study in 1968 before I was born so perhaps there was more of an epidemic then than now. I just don't see children in the US looking malnourished and hungry the way you see children in other countries who are clearly starving. Most kids I see look healthy with an alarming percentage looking like they eat too much.

Again, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. I haven't checked the stats in a long time, but I remember something like 70-80% of high school students try marijuana at least once in their four years; do you see them all with joints?

Maybe but then again perhaps there is "hungry" and then there is really "hungry." You know like how you can be poor but own 2 cars and 2 tvs vs being poor and living in a cardboard box in Mexico.

'
True enough, but malnourished doesn't have a lot of room for interpretation. Since that was the word used, that's what I'm assuming is the diagnosis for these kids.

I'm a PTA mom and spend tons of time at my childrens school volunteering and what not. Believe me schools love to create programs for no reason.

And I'm a public school teacher. There is always a reason for new programs. As I said, sometimes the educational programs don't have the best rationale behind them, but there is always a rationale; feeding kids is a simple rationale, and a simple solution to a simple, if serious, problem, so I doubt there would be any confusion amongst the powers that be when the program was first proposed and implemented.

Well I will agree there is absolutely no reason for children to be hungry. Certainly there is not a food shortage that would justify starving kids. I just honestly haven't seen many kids who looked like they were starving. And our breakfast program is fairly new. It wasn't set up in 1968.

Fair enough; I don't know when free and reduced breakfast became a common program. I'll be happy to look up more current numbers if you think there are fewer malnourished children now.

School is a place of learning. Lately it's become somewhat of a welfare program/parent. That takes away from the time and effort that can be spent on its original purpose.....learning. Having schools focus all their effort and money on learning would probably be more beneficial in the long run. Now if the kids were literally too hungry to learn I might agree schools should feed them but again I haven't seen evidence of that.

Same answer as before. I don't see direct evidence that would correlate to the number of kids that are having sex, but I know they are. Hungry kids don't learn; they are thinking about their hunger. Feeding them is good educational policy, as well as being humane. In fact, I don't think any educational program would be as important, or have as much effect, as feeding kids who are malnourished, dollar for dollar.

There are already social welfare programs in place to help families feed their children. There also local charities in addition to the welfare programs. Schools should not be focusing their time, money, or resources on "breakfast" in my opinion.

And if those worked, the schools would not have free and reduced lunch or free breakfasts. But whether it is because there are too many hungry kids, not enough charities, no charities in particular areas, or the kids just don't go to the charities, there are hungry children, and those are the ones the school should feed.

 

[Jerry]

China is our future if we do not institute a license to have children.

There will come a time when our population will outstrip our ability to provide to ourselves.

He who opposes a child rearing license supports forced abortions, uneducated and financially unprepared parents.

I dear say that the institution of a license to have children, enforced by the fulfillment of the civic duty of a vasectomy or tubule legation at a young age, morally no different than an inoculation, will all but eliminate abortions, teen pregnancy, and similar across the board.

In fact, men could no longer be forced into paying child support and being a father against his will, because he could only have children when he is willing to.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

:rofl LMFAO! That was a good one...

Thanks! And it's true, too. The reason behind the programs may not always be good, and the programs don't always fix the problem they are meant to, but there is always a reason. I'd like you to name me a few programs that have absolutely no reason for being, if you still disagree.

Nutrition is not so simple as you say. Kids in this country are getting progressively fatter and more unhealthy. Herding them into a school cafeteria and feeding them slop twice a day instead of once is not going to improve the situation. I've seen the school menus, and they are nothing but a recipe for every degenerative disease plaguing America.

Absolutely true, and just as disturbing to me as it is to you. But the answer is to improve school food, not to cut it off and hope the kids find healthy food elsewhere. I'd think that the slop is still a bit better than nothing, for the truly hungry children.

Child neglect is a crime. There are already laws and government entities in place to deal with the situation you describe. Let them do their jobs, and spend education money on education, not useless entitlement programs.

And when there are no hungry or malnourished children, I will rejoice that the laws and government entities are doing their jobs. In the meantime, there are hungry children in the schools, and they should be fed. I'm also curious how would feeding hungry kids interfere with the enforcement of child neglect laws?

 

[FallingPianos]

China is our future if we do not institute a license to have children.

I think the situation in europe is much more likely in the US

 

[Jerry]

I think the situation in europe is much more likely in the US

I'm not familiar, please educate me.

 

[FallingPianos]

I'm not familiar, please educate me.

There are a lot of countries where the population is declining because the birth rate is below the replacement rate.

 

[Jerry]

There are a lot of countries where the population is declining because the birth rate is below the replacement rate.

Considering our illegal immigration and birth rate, do see such a trend occurring in the US? What about the global population; do you believe it will decline as well? (Absent of war and/or famine, that is.)

 

[FallingPianos]

Considering our illegal immigration and birth rate, do see such a trend occurring in the US?

that really depends on how/if illegal immigration is dealt with. current projections show hispanics becoming a majority in the US in 50 years. (I think it was 50 years). If illegal immigration is stopped, the country is very likely to follow europes population patterns.

What about the global population; do you believe it will decline as well? (Absent of war and/or famine, that is.)

not anytime soon. in 3rd world countries where birth control is less available and people marry earlier, the population will continue to grow until it cannot be supported. As more countries become 1st world countries, they will begin to experience population decline.

 

[Wham]

supply and demand. there are far more parents out there seeking to adopt a newborn infant then newborn infants available for adoption.

That's one of the reasons. Another, and probably the most important as far as the welfare of the child is concerned, is to make sure that those applying for adoption are "qualified" to care for and shape the life of another human being.

If this sounds reasonable, then why is it only done for those adopting and not for biological parents?

 

[Wham]

The fishing, hunting, and driving licenses are a way to keep track of who is fishing, hunting, and driving. It's also a way to make money so the states can pay for roads and maintain parks, rivers, and streams, ect......

You have to take a drivers test to prove that you are able to operate a car safely before they hand you a license. At least they do in KY. If you don't show that ability, then you don't receive a license. The reason for this is to make sure the government isn't turning someone loose with a car they can't operate safely and possibly endangering the health & lives of others. I would argue that a child raised by unfit parents can cause far more damage in the long run than a vehicle with an unfit driver. Should we start handing out driver's licenses on the street corner?

The revenue generated from the "Birthing License" could be used to fund the screening program itself along with parental education classes to help new parents get started down the right path (that should make all the libs happy....social program, check).

No one is denied a license for any of this stuff unless they are somehow illegal age or had their license revoked for irresponsibility. You can have your children taken away for irresponsibility as well.

Correct! No one is denied a license unless they have been shown to be irresponsible/unfit by some criteria. Children being taken from parents for anything other than abuse is extremely rare.

This is a recklessly stupid idea.

I think the current situation is what's reckless. Look at the bahvior of kids today as a whole. Less respect for elders, property, feelings, authority, religion, and the list goes on. The lowest common denominator is the parents.