I voted no. I'm shocked at the number of people who voted yes.

In the 'special cases', individual children should be taken away from their parents when a court judges that there is a significant danger to that child from the parents (essentially as now).

Instead of a license, frequent (monthly, then 3-monthly, up to yearly past the age of 3 say) checks should be made on the welfare of the child and their home environment by social workers. There should be more scope for teachers reporting problems with the child that indicate a bad home life or other life issues and then something being done about that.

I think it is a good idea. There are some crappy parents, and it would be better for the children to not be raised by such fools.

That'll be so expensive. Some may also argue that it's infringing on the privacy of parents.

Have you ever seen the movie Idocracy?

It wouldn't surprise me if we were well on our way of trying to grow food with gatoraide.

It's got electrolytes! What plants need!

Just to be a devils advocate.

In special cases where you take the children away, the parent may decide they want another child.

If a parent had their children taken away because they were abusive to them, would you tell them they are not allowed to have any more children, or would you take their future children away from them when they are born?

Wouldn't it be more simple and perhaps even more humane to say "No, you've shown that you're an extremely bad parent, you can't have any more children"?

I don't see much difference between the two, because you can't enforce 'not having children' very well. You either have to stop people having sex (good luck with that), or require abortions, or take them away after people have them.

@Akvod

Some argue that weasel words are a bad idea.

But apart from that, how is it infringing on parents' rights? The checks would be only to see that the child is healthy and mentally OK. They could even be done at school, as long as it happens.

That has to be one of the worst ideas ever. And it violates my stance that the government should have as little to do with the uterus as possible.

Or you could steralize them.

Not that i'd advocate that kind of thing.

Ha, at first I thought this was a joke thread.

To say something is a right is not to say it must be done, but simply that there is a legal imperative not to interfere with someone who wishes to act in that way. To be a parent is a privilege, but it is a privilege to which no-one can be denied: i.e. it is a negative right: nobody who wishes to have a child should be prevented from doing so.