Now before people post negative remarks about this ... I post this question due to the amount of people I hear about/see on a daily basis who emotionally/physically/mentally abuse their children. Or just unfit parents who take care of their drug needs before feeding their children. That is why I propose this question.
[1 point]1 year ago by DaeverReplyEdited 1 year ago by Daever
Back in the good old days before drugs became rampart and kids were raised to think that they are the center of the universe, the license was called a marriage license. However, this permissive society has negated that safeguard.
I think that the only thing that people are committed to these days is themselves. There is an amazing movment out there where people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, like the lady who sued McDonalds for burns she got from spilling coffee on herself. I don't think that soon-to-be parents need to be licnsed...but having to take some sort of class to help them ascertain whether or not they are READY to raise a child is something to look at.
I would really hate to see the gov that involved in peoples personal choices, just like abortions, but now in order to adopt you certainly get investigated and being a parent due to birth, you dont.People seem to be making noise about the rights of the unborn and forget about any rights for the living. That is a good question and someone needs to be thinking something other than nothing..
Thanks Mags, sometimes I have a real problem expressing myself with the right words, some of you guys make it seem so easy and I have a hell of a time now and then
I say no except if the family is white trash and their kids are always being neglected. Those parents should have to be licensed. That is the humane way to look at it. The cruel way to look at it is armies need bodies to fight their wars. The neglected (often dimwitted) are more likely to volunteer to be cannon fodder. That means people with more to offer society will be free to pursue their goals. Hey you asked and I told, it's not like nothing can be done `cause it can. Sexual education. Free birth control. Counseling about not getting pregnant if you didn't even want kids in the first place. My point is there are pros and cons, I'm sure the smart people who vote "no" must already have a solution in mind.
[1 point]1 year ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 1 year ago by Chipmonk
Chipmonk, that is largest one dose of garbage I've seen in a long time. All military people are dim witted, only white trash...., more sex education, free birth control, all of which mean more government control. You need to be in China Chip, you would be in Chipmonk heaven.
LOL ... different strokes for different folks. Nobody wants to admit it but if you look at the enlistment rolls the overall characteristics of the group are much different than the characteristics of the latest Harvard MBA grads. I admit I was a little blunt, but afterall this is just a polling site. If I was writing a doctoral thesis I would have supported my research with actual examples to prove the points I attempt to make. Think it over and you will be able to see what I'm talking about. Of course, I admit, some will disagree with anyone.
We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
Now before people post negative remarks about this ... I post this question due to the amount of people I hear about/see on a daily basis who emotionally/physically/mentally abuse their children. Or just unfit parents who take care of their drug needs before feeding their children. That is why I propose this question.
It's a very good question. I hope it brings healthy discussion to the table. I personally say no.
Doesn't China already do something similar to this by limiting the number of children a household can have? I'm not sure.
China does, richporter, but only if you're poor.
Back in the good old days before drugs became rampart and kids were raised to think that they are the center of the universe, the license was called a marriage license. However, this permissive society has negated that safeguard.
great point Mike, that means nothing along commitment lines anymore.
well said
I think that the only thing that people are committed to these days is themselves. There is an amazing movment out there where people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, like the lady who sued McDonalds for burns she got from spilling coffee on herself. I don't think that soon-to-be parents need to be licnsed...but having to take some sort of class to help them ascertain whether or not they are READY to raise a child is something to look at.
I would really hate to see the gov that involved in peoples personal choices, just like abortions, but now in order to adopt you certainly get investigated and being a parent due to birth, you dont.People seem to be making noise about the rights of the unborn and forget about any rights for the living. That is a good question and someone needs to be thinking something other than nothing..
i agree bec.
Thanks Mags, sometimes I have a real problem expressing myself with the right words, some of you guys make it seem so easy and I have a hell of a time now and then
NO way! is true, there exist overpopulation, but, that's very terrible, I see that China does, I'm sorry about China...
I say no except if the family is white trash and their kids are always being neglected. Those parents should have to be licensed. That is the humane way to look at it. The cruel way to look at it is armies need bodies to fight their wars. The neglected (often dimwitted) are more likely to volunteer to be cannon fodder. That means people with more to offer society will be free to pursue their goals. Hey you asked and I told, it's not like nothing can be done `cause it can. Sexual education. Free birth control. Counseling about not getting pregnant if you didn't even want kids in the first place. My point is there are pros and cons, I'm sure the smart people who vote "no" must already have a solution in mind.
Chipmonk, that is largest one dose of garbage I've seen in a long time. All military people are dim witted, only white trash...., more sex education, free birth control, all of which mean more government control. You need to be in China Chip, you would be in Chipmonk heaven.
LOL ... different strokes for different folks. Nobody wants to admit it but if you look at the enlistment rolls the overall characteristics of the group are much different than the characteristics of the latest Harvard MBA grads. I admit I was a little blunt, but afterall this is just a polling site. If I was writing a doctoral thesis I would have supported my research with actual examples to prove the points I attempt to make. Think it over and you will be able to see what I'm talking about. Of course, I admit, some will disagree with anyone.
This is my thesis: Chipmonk is an elitist snob.
Well 37% isn't exactly a runaway vote but it's a start; however, as I stated, there are pros and cons either way one votes.