Should new babies' parents be required to take child-rearing

[Guaranteed]

Poll question: Should new babies' parents be required to take child-rearing

classes?

This is a slightly different issue than the dog training issue. In some ways I lean more toward the "yes" column here, due to the importance of rearing children, but I also think comparing this issue with the dog training issue lends a lot more clarity to individuals' rights aspects of both.

[Ron Green]

1. Yes. The benefits are so far-reaching, and the principles so clear,

that it should be required, especially for young parents.

[Guaranteed]

2. What would you teach them?

Are there certain approaches to rearing children that are better than others?

On edit: Or, rather, is there a certain approach to rearing children that is better than all of the rest?

[KittyWampus]

5. How to deal with incessant crying, for instance. Nutrition. Hygiene

[Ron Green]

7. Of course... don't beat them, understand what is the adult role in a

transaction, expose them to books ... there are hundreds of powerful techniques and irrefutable truths to raising children.

[Guaranteed]

9. What if they don't pass the class? nt

[Ron Green]

12. Tell them they're not ready. Maybe they'll think about HOW they're not.

[Guaranteed]

16. So...if the woman is pregnant, what would you tell them?

Or, if they already have a child, what would you tell them? Would you take their child from them?

[Ron Green]

21. Child Protective Services sometimes does just that

in extreme cases. However, the idea is that preventive instruction on a large scale can eliminate many of the tragic cases, and raise the overall level of care for people in their most formative stages.

[Guaranteed]

25. Right, but not because they've failed a class.

They do it when the child is clearly being neglected or abused.

[Ron Green]

30. Do you think it's better to wait for abuse or neglect, than to act first?

[Guaranteed]

33. If one is mandating actions by the parents prior to any

wrongdoing- yes.

Parenthood is right, not a privilege. It's not like driving. It can't be infringed upon without good cause.

[Ron Green]

35. I think good cause is the physical and mental health of our citizens.

And the best research shows that early childhood nurture and education, performed by the parents, is the biggest factor in this health. There are some fundamental principles to which everyone facing parenthood ought to be exposed, and the Free Market sure as hell isn't going to do the job.

And do you consider all education "infringement?"

[Guaranteed]

38. That's not an actual cause. The police can't use that reasoning

to go into your house.

[Ron Green]

39. I thought we were talking about teachers, not police.

[Guaranteed]

42. No, we were talking about cause, rights, and forcing people to do things.

[Ron Green]

46. Oh, I thought we were talking about mandatory education,

something we already have in this country.

[Guaranteed]

48. Up until the age of 18.

That's not enough for ya?

Parents home-school their children, anyway. Are you sure they're doing a good job? Should we outlaw that, too, to ensure that the state is getting children the education they need?

Or just make the parents take classes before doing so?

[Ron Green]

52. Unfortunately, many of the parents-to-be are not yet that old.

Look, it's not a huge deal. A class of maybe 20 contact hours, using all best research and practices, will help our society immensely, I suspect. Didn't you yourself say you were leaning toward a "yes" on this?

[Guaranteed]

57. I said I was leaning *more* toward a yes.

Like I said, though, the rights become more clear with this issue because parents' rights come into play (although they could with the dogs, too). And, ultimately, I'm against it, for many, many reasons.

The other question was ridiculous.

There are a lot of things you could force people to do with 20 hours that would, in some peoples' minds (thus my opinion is of no consequence), benefit society. Those hours add up, though. And there are things that would require less time and have similar alleged benefits that we would never do, due to peoples' rights.

[Imalittleteapot]

3. Parenting classes should be taught

in every high school in America.

[entanglement]

27. Then you'll have someone complaining about

girls / women being forced into traditional gender roles...

[Scout]

62. teach the same class to men and women together

and you could avoid that. The only thing the woman HAS to do after birth is breast feed. The man or the woman can do everything else required.

[smartvoter]

4. Do we have to go to class for everything natural? nt

[KittyWampus]

6. With our family structure broken almost completely down, I say yes.

industrial society has decimated families.

almost no support system left.

[Guaranteed]

8. LOL that sounds Republican.

:P Not accusing you, of course.

[KittyWampus]

17. How does it sound GOP? Society in America IS Hostile To Families...

no living wage, holidays, long work works, no health care, debt, filty environment, lack of housing.

And no help with childcare... but 2 parents need to work to pay for barely getting by...

[Guaranteed]

20. Creating a law requiring parents to take classes is going to lessen

the hostility and the burden?

[KittyWampus]

70. I'm not in favor of passing the law. just answered query about what poten

potential classes would teach. :)

[Scout]

60. you really think good parenting is just a natural skill

that everyone's born with? Is that what you're saying?

Just because I can fuck some man and then squeeze out a baby nine months later does not have any bearing on being a good parent. And just because I can fuck some woman and get her pregnant, same thing.

Too many people are already doing just the above, fucking and breeding mindlessly. Before everyone flames, I'm not saying that everyone who has children does this--there just seems to be a lot of people who do. I'm not calling everyone with children breeders, but some people with children are.

[noiretextatique]

10. home economics

was required class for girls when i was in jr high school. :eyes: wouldn't it make sense to teach people how to care for infants vs. how to make a casserole?

[HockeyMom]

11. I voted No

This is where the concept of "It takes a Village comes in": grandparents, aunts/uncles, siblings, friends, even neighbors. Both my Mom and Mother-in-Law helped me as much as they could, but they lived far away. I cannot say how many times I called on or went to see the older woman down the street for help with my daughter.

I also joined Le Leche League. Everyone in the group gave out their phone numbers and were only a call away if help was needed. Many, many aspects of child rearing were discussed at these meetings, not just breastfeeding.

Once again, the concept of the "The Village".

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. pretty soon you try to have classes for babies to help raise their parents

This brings up a deeper question.
How has our educational system developed to what it is now?
Because, seeing some curriculla that nieces and nephews are using - boy, I think our school systems are investigating for light in places where the sun don't shine.

Do people need some education on parenting?
Sure. THey also need a village, they need a family, and they need role models of proper behavior. (and having seen Santorum's book in Sam's club, they DO NOT need to see his book)

For myself, I just like to practice.

[lunchtime]

14. What if they don't want to go? Arrest them?

I can understand the good intentions of such an idea, but I don't really see it as government's place to tell anyone how to raise their children.

[Ron Green]

28. Education isn't "telling anyone how" to do things.

Education is presenting the best information and practices in a way that opens up the learner to some universal truths.

Consider that in the past, families were the support system for children, assisted by the extended family and the village. Now these supports and assists are severely diminished, and the larger structures are called upon: The State, the Market, and the Church. Even the Church is now reduced in our world, so we're left with the State and the Market. If you can show me that the Market has the best interests of a child at heart, I'll buy you a drink. It falls to the State to seek protection and nurturing for children when other institutions fail. It's already happening with Head Start and WIC, and parenting classes are a logical extension.

Welcome to DU.

[jmm]

15. I'm all for a free optional one but

we shouldn't require it. How do we know the class will be well run and won't try to push a biased belief system on some people? We shouldn't force people to sit through something that might be propaganda.

[Ron Green]

19. The ones who need it most won't likely choose it.

That's the problem with instruction or training to benefit society as a whole: those who choose it are already predisposed to act positively, while the negative folks won't sign up.

[jmm]

29. I still would like to know how do we know it will be well run?

There are some people who believe children should only be raised by a married man and woman. I have a lesbian aunt who adopted a son and has done an excellent job raising him alone. When his teachers and psychologists told her he wouldn't even make it out of junior high or live independently she never gave up on him and know he's graduated from high school, has held the same job for years, and is living on his own. Would a parenting class tell people she's wrong?

[Ron Green]

32. I think a parenting class would tell her not to beat the kid and not to

cook meth in the house where he's sleeping. And to read him a book every night.

[jmm]

34. I wish I could be that trusting

I don't trust a government that pushes abstinence only classes in many schools and ties AIDS funding to abortion rights abroad to stop there.

[Ron Green]

37. Trust is difficult to build, I agree.

[Guaranteed]

41. How would it address the issue of spanking?

What's the appropriate curfew for a 15-year-old?

Would it advocate breast-feeding?

[Ron Green]

47. Never spank in anger. 11:00 pm. Yes.

I mean, how hard is this?

[Guaranteed]

49. LOL how could others disagree?

Somehow, they do.

[Ron Green]

54. Yeah, they disagree about what constitutes dangerous driving, too,

but our society manages to establish some standards.

[Guaranteed]

58. But, again, driving is a privilege, not a right.

And the standards we create that infringe upon rights should be based on actual cause, not imagined or possible ones.

[Ron Green]

100. Should we wait until someone has a wreck before teaching driver ed?

[pitohui]

73. what a waste of time

if i need an income and society is not giving me a chance, then by damn i will cook crack or meth, in my area crack is more open to females, so probably crack, and by god i will put food on the table

everybody knows the theory, do you think people are stupid

people are fighting to survive out here, if you want to help, suggest something helpful, like child care

not a class on "only a moron would have a baby, so you, moron, just an fyi here -- don't cook crack in the same house with the baby, rent an entire completely separate house and be completely noncompetitive with the other cookers"

come on

it is silly

i accept that teachers and social workers want more jobs to get more pay but this is just a hand-out for teachers and social workers, don't pretend it is about the family

[Ron Green]

99. I think I heard Rush Limbaugh say pretty much what you've said here.

[matt819]

18. Only the Democratic parents

We all know that Republicans have fine family values, and, in fact, are genetically predisposed to fine parenting skills as well. Of course, we mustn't forget that Republican parents are fine Christians, and we all know that good Christians make the best parents. So. . . I would say that only Democratic parents need parenting skills classes, so that they can learn such fine family values as pedophilia, bigotry, racism, etc.

[Guaranteed]

23. That's the way it might work if this was to happen.

I liken this to the freedom of religion issue in a lot of ways.

[The Straight Story]

22. I voted No - reason(s) (Let Daddy * get a hold of this idea.....)

1. Requiring people by law to take classes about a naturally occuring thing such as parenthood smacks of what one call either big-brotherism or church like meddling into how one should live. Besides, we have schools already where we should be teaching the basics needed in life and if we can't take a week out of 12 years of school to teach people about such things then I find that pretty damn sad.

2. One thing can, and will, lead to another. Want an abortion? Have to go to class about how they are done and see the effects it has had on the lives of others (both good and bad). And no, this is not the slippery slope argument - it's the can of worms one.

3. Who decides what is best in these things? In a diverse country such as ours we have a large swath of beliefs and ideals, what would such a class communicate? Would this be only for the first kid? Would Amish people have to go to it as well? Do you want Daddy Bush as the head of this whole thing or someone like him if they are in power??

4. Don't require it - but what could be done is to offer incentives to take such a class (tax break, free stuff, who knows) and keep the freedom to choose alive and well. Making people do something can often lead to them not wanting to. Getting them to want to do it would work far better with more retention. Get corporations on board, offer them something in return to get employees motivated to go (a few extra days off, etc and so on).

Just my humble opinion, thank you, please drive thru.

[newswolf56]

24. Normally I would oppose the interjection of government into anything...

as intimate as childrearing, for the same reason I oppose the intrusion of government into the bedroom, the kitchen, the garden and the family gunsafe. But the (corporate-engineered) destruction of our extended families, and the further fragmentation of our nuclear families (by the same forces for precisely the same divisive motives) has created such an abyss of child-raising ignorance, I see no reasonable alternative: upon determination of viable pregnancy and choice to retain the fetus, mandatory parenting classes for both mother and father (or mate), mandatory paid leave time from work to attend. And basic introduction to such training as a part of all high school health classes.

[marlakay]

26. I think we should have a life class taught from K on

in the early years respect of others and manners could be taught. Unfortunately many parents aren't teaching this to their children. By junior and senior high we should teach the responsibility of being an adult, paying bills, holding down a full time job, and being a good parent.

Maybe if we taught this along with reading and math our kids would be more responsible as adults.

Then as part of the monthly visits for prenatal you sign up for monthly parents classes. Not a bad idea.

[Caleb]

31. No

There should be optional classes, but not required ones.

[Mz Pip]

36. As much as I wish

that people were more responsible in raising their children, I am opposed to any requirement to take a child rearing class.

THere are lots of theories of child rearing. Which one would be used? The fundy Christian one? The let your kid do anything he damn well pleases so his creativity isn't stifled one?

Too many theories. I had one theory. Then I had a kid. THat changed pretty quick. Then I had another kid and the theory changed again.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Ron Green]

44. There aren't many theories when you look at the broad themes.

*How to keep them safe
*How to be assertive rather than aggressive or passive
*How to encourage them to learn about the world

So many people are so deathly afraid of the Government, they don't see what the Corporations have done to us and our children.

[Pithlet]

92. You haven't been to too many parenting boards, have you?

There are hundreds of theories. The scale runs from Non-Coercive parenting to Baby Wise and beyond.

I fully support classes, but they cannot be coerced.

[HEyHEY]

40. Depends what you mean by rearing

I say give tax incentives to get them to classes on how to properly keep a child healthy. But as for behaviour, no absolutely not.

[Guaranteed]

43. I think that's a great idea. nt

[LeftyMom]

45. Absolutely not. nt

[madeline_con]

50. What if they flunk?

Is the child automatically put up for adoption?

[Scout]

53. they're offered the option to repeat the class.

if they fail again, oh well, we did our best.

Then they're on they're own, just as if they never had the class. Hopefully at least some basics stuck.

[sweetheart]

51. Other ( libertarian no )

Love knows no boundaries. Do not meddle with how i love my kids, and
i will raise perfect citizens for you. The fascination with increasing
the nanny state, or even the conception of it, for more big government
invasiveness that pretty soon we've criminalized parenthood.

Government needs to back off, and leave citizens alone with freedom.
Freedom is messy, but it is the only way, and to suggest anything else
is to install cameras in every room of our houses, to put our whole lives
as part of prison-state usa, that the warden can bust in with the
guards, for a plethora of reasons, from unsanitary sheets, to an angry
outburst at the kids who're challenging parental authority.

If you want your kid to turn out well, then keep them away from
television, give them enough natural space to spend their childhoods
in nature, and make sure they are loved.

Love is not wealth, and as 1/6th of american children are raised in
poverty, the classes this thread suggests, will inevitably favour
material things and providing material resources for the kids, rather
than something that cannot be taught... love.

[Ron Green]

56. Sounds pretty groovy, but somehow I don't think most kids are growing up

with much "natural space" or parents who know enough to resist the pressures of the beloved Free Market.

I don't think good parenting classes will favor material things; that's what the television teaches. Good classes will encourage reading instead of TV, nutrition instead of junk, reason instead of anger.

You've given the province of love over to the Free Market. I suggest that is the merchant of fear, not love.

[sweetheart]

61. No government in private lives

It is not the free market, but government meddling in my loins.

It is punishing good parents to the common denominator of the worst
amongst us. It is sending all drivers to "speeding school" because
some drivers speed.

I reserve the right to have a private life, to have my life and
business with my kids be a private affair... and i ask that the
community trust me, as a law abiding citizen to be an impeccable
person who is presumed innocent of child abuse and poor parenting.

[Guaranteed]

66. You don't have to ask.

It's your right.

[Scout]

55. I voted yes.

Make the class mandatory once. If they fail, offer it again. If they don't want it, oh well, go home you are on your own now. There's only so much we can do. If they want to take it again, great! Here's the schedule.

No further required action unless something like abuse or neglect, as currently defined, occurs and is reported.

Teach basics of physical care of an infant. Teach how to handle your own frustration, exhaustion, feelings of inadequacy as a parent. Give lists of contact information for many kinds of services that may be needed. Teach that "some people think spanking is OK for these reasons, and some people think spanking is not OK for these reasons." Handle other very controversial but important issues the same way. Present the information and leave the choice to the parents. Encourage both parents to discuss important issues about childrearing together.

Do not teach anything about religion or lack thereof. Do not teach anything about politics.

That's a start.

[qanda]

59. This is a joke, right?

[Guaranteed]

65. What? The question, or the vote? nt

[Guaranteed]

63. I think I have a different understanding of liberalism than

many people on DU do.

I fully recognize that there would be many societal benefits to mandatory parenting classes, but I believe more strongly in the rights of the individual and the idea that different people have different ways of doing things, in particular when it comes to raising children.

Again, for me, this is very much like religious freedom. It's not entirely the same, but so much of raising children is a grey area.

I don't think the government should be able to legislate parenting absent actual neglect or abuse.

[Fescue4u]

64. Who would teach it?

How about the Bush administration setting the curriculum?

[Guaranteed]

67. Probably either a liberal or a neocon.

It's tough to find a middle-ground nowadays.

[pitohui]

68. like that would really work

I'm more in favor of a law saying one person, one child, you screw up and fry that one in the backseat of yr suv, you don't get to pop out another

people too stupid to learn from other people's experiences shouldn't be having children anyway, these are the very people who can't learn in a classroom situation


my proposal owes a debt to the work of john varley and is only possible because of modern dna science

yeah, there would be some sad stories of mothers who lost their children through no fault of their own and were already tied off, but you know what

there will be a lot more sad stories when the entire planet is used up and thrown away because we thought the right to breed like rabbits was in our constitution, which guess what, it ain't

[friesianrider]

69. Hell I think you should be required to take pet-ownership classes

Before adopting or buying a pet. I voted yes on this.

[Guaranteed]

71. How about cutlery classes?

Knives are dangerous.

[friesianrider]

74. Yes, but...

That hardly causes public concern if someone slices off their own finger or whatever.

The number of animals dumped in shelters every year DO cause great public concern. Our communities would be saving boatloads of $ if people were more responsible with their pets. Just sayin'.

[Guaranteed]

77. Knives kill more people than dogs do.

Accidental or otherwise.

Knives are of great concern to the public.

[friesianrider]

81. Huh?

Someone sliving off a finger isn't of public concern, IMHO. The point I'm trying to make is that irresponsible pet ownership costs all communities a great deal of finances and resources.

[Guaranteed]

86. Slicing off fingers is most definitely of public concern.

The safety of people is definitely of public concern. Otherwise, you wouldn't teach parents not to let their young children play with knives in your parenting classes. I'm assuming you'd teach that.

The thousands of fingers that are sliced off every year in our country by knives cause increased medical costs, lost productivity and wages, and, certainly, much needless pain. Even death.

Knives cause death.

[friesianrider]

89. LOL

Um, okay, sure. :eyes:

If you cannot see how irresponsible pet ownership (and the 8 million animals euthanized in US shelters and the costs associated with people who toss away animals like garbage) is more important than some knucklehead slicing off his own finger, well, then I can't help you there.

Go ahead, you've got last word - I'm going to bed.

[Guaranteed]

91. Honestly- I don't see that.

Not that I can't see what you're saying. But, comparing the two, I do NOT see that.

On edit: Both dogs and knives have some dangerous aspects. Most of the time people learn to deal with or avoid those dangerous aspects for both dogs and knives through their daily lives.

When a dog growls, don't mess with it. Be careful with knives. These are things that we really should all know just through experience and some advice from parents.

Which is funny, because that's actually a different point than the one being addressed in the question above- although many of the rights issues involved in the above question are also involved with the dogs and knives question. Which makes the arguments against them stronger.

[TimeChaser]

72. Then you would be interested to know

that is thread came from this disscussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4261062&mesg_id=4261062

[friesianrider]

75. I voted yes there too :)

Of course ;)

[pitohui]

78. such classes are a death sentences to many pets

the more barriers you put up to adoption, the more pets euthanised instead of adopted

[Guaranteed]

80. That is an EXCELLENT point. nt

[friesianrider]

82. That's probably true, however...

People said the same thing about shelters charging an adoption fee ("if you really cared, you would give them away for free").

I personally, as an animal lover, would be relieved to find such requirements in place. I'd rather a dog be humanely euthanized than used for bait in a dog fight or a kitten used for food for someone's snake (or, neglected or abused because the adopters were terrible owners who had no clue about owning a pet - therefore making the dog unadoptable to anyone else). I personally think most responsible pet owners would understand why required classes were in place.

[Lannes]

76. Available but not required

[Guaranteed]

79. They should be free and easily available to everyone.

But definitely not required.

[friesianrider]

83. But who would voluntarily take them?

nt

[Lannes]

84. Teens?

They are still trying to figure things out themselves.

[friesianrider]

85. Really?

I can't see *anyone* taking a class on responsible pet ownership just for the heck of it.

[Lannes]

88. Im talking about new mothers and fathers

Not just for the heck of it.

[Guaranteed]

87. I dunno- would you? nt

[hack89]

90. self deleted

[Blue_In_AK]

93. It's been a long time since I was a "new mother"

but I sure as hell would not have appreciated the government poking its nose into how I raised my children. Parenting classes are fine for people who are having problems, but should NOT be required for everyone. This is ridiculous. There are as many different styles of parenting as there are parents ... saying one way is "right" and another "wrong" (excluding neglect and abuse, of course) is a slippery slope.

[seabeyond]

94. i am NOT taking a class. i get pregnant

gonna take the child from the parent?

on edit: i did more diverse study adn reading on babies, parenting, fetus, pregnant womans health than any class could possibly give me. but, i dont like group, i dont like class. i wouldnt take a class

[newswolf56]

95. I believe some health insurance programs already require...

parenting classes (of both mother and mate) when their insureds become pregnant and chose to have the child. As I understand it, such classes address medical questions, nutrition, exercise, basic child safety, proper feeding, parental obligations under law, where to turn for childcare help, etc. -- not ideological issues like religion, the parents' politics, or the presence or absence of firearms in the family home.

Welfare in my home state of Washington does likewise, but unfortunately the training is ideological with a vengeance, for example, inflexibly feminist and venomously anti-male (the mother must keep written records to force the assumed-to-be-lazy father to do 50 percent of all household and child-care work, even if he is employed full-time at a physically exhausting job) and implacably anti-gun (parents who own firearms but refuse to get rid of them are definitively unfit parents -- even if the family lives in rural areas where there are cougar and bear hazards, and firearms are the only rational defense). Though it seems to me the issue here is not the training itself but rather authoritarian ideological content combined with the notorious tyranny of welfare workers. (Low-income working families in Washington state can get medical assistance for their children via welfare, but at a cost of turning the minutiae of their lives over to the welfare bureaucracy, exactly as if they were on full-fledged public assistance. The welfare bureaucracy is infamously unforgiving of even the slightest disobedience or noncompliance, however unintentional, and therefore rules by abject fear.)

Hence were I to answer this question on the basis of the reality of welfare alone, my response would be a resounding "NO!"

[lynne]

96. If you skip class -

- do they take the baby back?

[Guaranteed]

97. KICK!!! nt

[REP]

98. It's An Appealing Idea, But NO

Who'd be running it? Would it be teaching Fundamentals of Christian Parenting? Attachment Parenting? Overindulge Snotleigh's Every Whim Parenting? You want any of your money going to support any or all of those schools of thought?

Basic childrearing and baby tending education should be available to whoever needs it, but it should not be mandatory, and a non-Xian (et alia) should not have to attend Christian (et alia) Parenting classes if they are not interested in that sort of thing. It would be nice if hospitals and community centers offered 'values-neutral' classes (how to change, bathe and feed and infant; how to deal with an infant that won't stop wailing; developmental milestones, etc), but forcing attendance - while theoretically a nice idea - is practically unworkable and unjustifiable.