The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Parental license should take effect

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,011 times Debate No: 34146
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Children by most societies. are being prioritized when it comes to protection. when children are being brought to day cares parents want to know the reputation of the place.
when you adopt a child you are being checked if you are qualified in having the child.
And when a child is being abused most people in the right mind will have the great urge to help the child.

Biological parents when bringing offspring affect the child during the pregnancy phase, thus can be abused and be disordered in one away or another.
either by taking drugs or smoking or drinking... etc'.

Usually when trying to find suitable people for certain activities or jobs like: driving, gun and business ownership... etc' you need to have a license for that.

If we were to make a parental license how many children could grow up to become productive adults?


Installing a law or a rule in the system to ensure that child abuse does not take place may well act as a short-term fix but is bound to cause further problems or side-affects. Let's focus a little on the crux of the problem.

Our civilization, for the lack of a better word, operated mostly under law. Law is a binding on our behavior. For instance, consider the act of murder. As far as I know, the act of killing is universally considered as an offence is punished. The real question is: Do we hesitate from killing anyone because there is a law that punishes those who do? or Do we hesitate from killing anyone because it is a "wrong" thing to do?

I agree that, in certain cases, the definition of right and wrong might differ. But it is not true in case of parental care. The most important biological functionality of any living being is reproduction. To ensure that its species or generation continues in good health and take all the necessary and sufficient care for the same. Reproduction and parental care are in fact, the characteristics of living things. Being the most advance of all living organisms, humans have the most well-developed mechanism in-place to protect their offspring and in my opinion, this act of "sacrifice of comforts" and care-taking is primarily responsible for the emotional connection of a parent with child. This is a natural process.

So, instituting a law for the purpose of ensuring proper conducts of parents is not a solution to the problem of raising healthy and resourceful children. The solution is to build awareness about parenting and help inculcate proper child-care in parents. Parents should not care because they would have to; they should care because they would want to. We should not be creating law for fundamental characteristics of living things.
Debate Round No. 1


We already have laws about child abuse that affect what is right and wrong about parenting.
So parenthood is not as free as you might think (for good reason).

The fact that giving birth to offspring is a natural way that humans were able to continue their species.
However this mechanism can't be productive today as it was back than.
The reason for that is :
  1. Humans already have enough in their population and have a greater economy system. thus we have less birth rate because we can allow it.
    Parental license will merely just push parents to work to study in order to understand children before unintentionally abusing them (neglect, physical, emotional).
  2. Educated and stable women usually have less birth rate than poorer women.
    Parental license will limit for more educated women to be able to give birth to offspring.
  3. Most of the unhealthy births can come out of having extreme broken genes, or abuse during pregnancy either from the mother or the environment.

    Through history unhealthy babies would be dead and many times with the mother at birth.
    That's why it was naturally productive, you have less mouths to feed. and only the fit survived.
    That was also the natural and dark process when you think about it.

    Thank god we don't live in those times anymore.

    If parental license will be checked before or in the early stages of pregnancy.
    The parents would be pushed to research the topic and study in order to get the license and be able to give birth to better offspring.

In a perfect world people will be able and willing to give resourceful offspring without being pushed towards such a goal.
However we don't live in such a world, and just because a parent want to take care of a child doesn't mean he can or should.



First of all, Child abuse laws ( are not intended for parents. Based on the wikipedia link about it, we observe that most predominant form of child abuse is neglect. If you observe the reasons for neglect of a child, they are fundamental ones. Unable to secure proper food, clothing, shelter i.e. the basic necessities for child is a problem of poverty/illiteracy and not the lack of parental care per se (

Secondly, if the argument is to have a parental license to fight against child abuse, it is not a workable solution in that the law cannot ensure that child abuse won't take place or will get reduced. Child abuse prevention laws are by themselves necessary and sufficient to prevent it. So the argument that, parental license should be a law so as to prevent child abuse is not a valid one in my opinion.

In your own words, parental license would be about requiring prospective parents to study the process of child development and be able to understand and willingly accept conformance with the practices raising a child well and good. I agree. But then, you are talking about education as a means of solving the problem. It is true that educating prospective parents about what they are going to face is certainly the most effective way of solving the problem. Education must be directed towards making well-off parents understand and really appreciate about parenthood. For poorer parents, it must provide a means of earning their livelihood and thus indirectly making sure that the actual root cause of child abuse - poverty and illiteracy - are eradicated.

In his book, "What the dog saw and other adventures", Malcolm Gladwell presented an interesting point of increasing death rates of woman in US due to breast cancer. Summarily, he also presents a study of a tribe where young woman get pregnant more than 3-5 times in their adult life and have longer menstrual ages and how such process, directly or indirectly, acted in some way to prevent the breast cancer or maintain good-health. I am neither saying that frequent child-births is way to healthiness for woman nor am I advocating for it. I am just trying to point out that child-births is not a problem - raising them is.

Ideal world or otherwise, the real way of averting diabolic problems like child abuse is education and not law. The law by itself is impotent unless we choose to follow it.
Debate Round No. 2


nightchanger forfeited this round.


In absence of any arguments by Pro in the last round, my arguments stand affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3


Sorry for my absence . Had schedule problems.

Child abuse laws are intended against child abuse period. Either from strangers or from their parents.
It was just to point out that parenthood is and should be limited.

But advocacy groups are usually getting contacted by parents that want and wiling to go over the information of being a supportive parent. Parental license as I quoted "The parents would be pushed to research the topic and study in order to get a license".

I agree that supporting children is the bigger problem rather than giving birth.
That is why we need to focus on raising rather than bringing more mouths to feed.
As you said the biggest child abuse is neglect which makes more sense if the average birth rate is high.
Because the more children there are the harder it's to be there for everyone.

Law can fight child abuse, and just because it can't ensure that every child will not go through child abuse, doesn't mean It can't still decrease the chances of children getting through child abuse.

Many poverty problems or children and illiteracy is being affected greatly by the adults in the environment and parents are a major role in what will be the environment.

Parent's from of a low economy give more birth in comparison to parents from higher economy:


I am not proposing that parents give birth to more children. I also agree to what data points out in this aspect. In developing parts of the world the birth rate is higher. But an important distinction to understand is that parenting is activity that is "almost" natural in advanced primates like humans. For survival, continuing once race is crucial and that is why the act of parenting assumes importance.

Parental License, as I understand your explanation, is about educating parents to take care of their child. But then that is education! That is what our educational institutions like schools, colleges, society are doing. That is the way it should be. Every living thing, with the exception of filial cannibals, take care of their off spring and it is one of the fundamental necessity of life. It is unreasonable to argue that child abuse laws must be fought with Parental License. The most predominant child abuse is neglect and that arises from problems like poverty, illiteracy. Parental License cannot be taken up by an illiterate, poor parents. Parental License will be an unnecessary and invalid step when poverty and illiteracy are treated properly.

Let us understand what law does to this act. When there is a law implemented for anything there is a provision for amendments, additions and removals. Parental License soon might start to extend beyond its implementation. I can't guarantee that it will be extrapolated but nobody can guarantee that it won't. So it won't be outlandish to assume that this law can be tricked into dealing with prostitution, child-trafficking and other myriad problems.

The world can work as per law or as per morale. They have their own advantages. Converting every moral responsibility into law will only complicate the situation and lead to unforeseen problems.
Debate Round No. 4


nightchanger forfeited this round.


Let me summarize my arguments.

First, the problem of parental abuse - to shield against which the step of parental license has been instigated - is much like other socioeconomic problems viz. cigarette addiction, alcohol addiction, homelessness etc. The law can only manage these problems from reaching fatal proportions but is not sufficient to solve them. The consequences of introducing a law will result in introduction of ethical and moral routes to solve other problems. Of course, the law can be observed vigilantly and punishment can be imposed upon perpetrators but it is not the right way to solve the problem, per se.

Second, the structure of parental license will essentially involve education at its heart. It will be about knowing right from wrong as far as upbringing of a child is concerned. In societies with collective behavior, high standards of morale rules and is considered higher than law. A strong ethical education system - in turn - is cornerstone of such a behavior.
So, education is the solution and not a certificate to prove that parent are ready to care for child.

Third, the most important form of child abuse is neglect.[1] Neglect arises from the fact that parents are not able to make two ends meet. Parental license will be seen as another federal overhead by the parents who, either cannot afford it or cannot understand it. It will involve educating lot of parents about the parental license which is an unnecessary complication.

Thus, parental license is not a wise step in the direction of solving child abuse.

[1] -
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by nightchanger 3 years ago
I was expecting the time to be due to another 3 hours. Apparently there were internet and schedule problems.
Any way sorry for forfeiting 2 rounds. good debate bburli.
No votes have been placed for this debate.