Actually, a "license to reproduce" is the right solution.

.....aaand, speaking of marriage licenses, the fiance and I are getting ours within the week

These kind of ideas, regulating human behavior by limiting human behavior, are not new but are a reflection of a current trend in the states, especially by individuals who feel they are being burdened by the actions of others. Intuitively, I know the solution and the cause of the solution are unrealistic, self-serving, and at times delusional.

A driver's license exists not to prevent people from driving but to ensure that adequate driving exists on the roadways. Also, a driver's license exists because it is enforceable. Also, a driver's license is equitable meaning that regardless of social class, ethnicity or religion someone can attain it. A marriage license exists not to prevent marriage but to ensure that both parties are aware that their commitment is a legally enforceable contract. Also, a marriage contract is enforceable. Also a marriage license is becoming equitable more and more people are being included in the process. Any good license at it's chore is not preventative, rather it serves the purpose of ensuring some sort of societal conduct will be upheld as well as being enforceable as well as being equitable.

A parent license would by its very definition be preventative--that would be it's sole purpose. Adequate financial means, two-parent home, or some sort of competency test will not and has not been proven scientifically to guarantee children will be raised properly--if being a law-abiding productive citizen is considered proper. The purpose would be to exclude people from the process based again on measures that serve one segment of the community but not all segments of the community.

A parent license is not enforceable morally or legally. Without forced sterilization, forced abortion or forced adoption there is no way to ensure that people will be able to abide by the law.

Finally, a parenting license is not equitable as it will exclude by social class and maybe other factors.

You do realize you failed to make a single point undermining the OP?

Every single idea expressed in this post supports the "child license" more, not less, than it supports other accepted forms of licensing.

sorry meri- we need less government intervention in the lives of citizens and more citizen intervention in the operation of government.

Well, the government is made up of citizens. People who work in the government sector are no different to people working in the private sector. I mean, in that we all have aspirations, ambitions, opinions and a personal set of values. Which also means that the laws and processes the government employees are operating with were put in place by citizens.

the problem with this approach is that the government is the one defining "clearly at risk" and "neglect" and "abuse." i am not anti-child. but having gone through the @n@! exam offered by cps in new york state because of the contentious divorce laws there and having watched the abuse of my children at the hands of the system- i'd say government has no clue as to what truly defines child abuse.

I'm not a parent and so do not have first hand experience. Is it possible that the issue you experienced was not so much with the government per se, but with the representatives you got lumbered with for the duration?

Abuse is going to be a tough one, dependant on people's circumstances and experience. My parents believed in physical punishment. Some of the punishments I received are considered abuse today and yet, I don't believe I was abused and I don't feel abused.

But the government needs somewhere to start when it comes to abuse.

at the end of the day, most of the time the parent family knows what is best for the child. those in government are paid to "care." and at the end of the day they do what they do for a pay check. i do what i do for love. and if you want to take a biological view- the continuation of my dna.

I agree. My concern is not for those children who have loving, concerned parents - but for those who do not. For example, if one of your children had been hurt in any way by the government workers, I find it very hard to believe that you would have remained silent. There needs to be a voice for those children whose parents fail them in this regard. And with the complete separation of religion and state - that voice is the government.

i had more than one bureaucrat (educational, social worker, pick one/another) tell me how much they cared for my child and only wanted what was best for them. "they" were there for my child. but they got payed to care. i told more than one. "you may or may not be involved in the life of my child for a year or two- i will be involved, god willing, until i die."

and in the end, bureaucrats need clients- they need people in the system. no (or fewer) abused children- no agency or fewer jobs. do not kid yourselves. these people need "abused children" to stay in a job.

Unfortunately, there are always going to be abused children in the system. Therefore, there needs to be both a system and employees in place to help them.

yes i have an axe to grind and yes it is a sore point. i am bitter and have no intention of ever letting this go. again- we need less government interference in the lives of the people and more people interfering in the "affairs" of government.