Supporting Arguments for Parent Licensing In Hugh Lafollette’s paper “Licensing Parents” he talks about the need for government licensing of parents. His argument states that for any activity that is harmful to others, requires competence, and has a reliable procedure for determining competence, should require licensing by the government. This argument relates to parenting because it can be harmful to children, requires competence to raise children, and we can assume that a reliable procedure can be formulated. Therefore, parenting should require licensing by the government. I agree with Lafollette and shall focus on supporting him by addressing the most practical objections: “There is no reliable procedure for identifying competent …show more content…
This approach will allow different cultures to raise their children according to their beliefs as long as they are not severely harmed. The overgeneralization objection is not sound because the “procedures for licensing drivers, physicians, lawyers, druggists etc. plainly are not 100 percent accurate,” so striving for a perfect test is unrealistic (Lafollette 1980, 189). We have to accept that some bad parents will mistakenly licensed and good parents denied just as some bad drivers are licensed and good drivers are denied. Lafollette also notes that since these types of tests are not 100 percent accurate, people will be able to reapply just as they can reapply for a driver’s license. Therefore, a general test should weed out most of the bad parents with few errors. From these objections and responses, we can see that a reliable procedure for identifying competent parents could be formulated. A second objection that carries a lot of force is that “…we could never adequately, reasonably, and fairly enforce…” a parent licensing program (Lafollette 1980, 193). This objection carries so much force because a couple can conceive babies without the help of anyone else. Due to this fact it would be impossible to control unauthorized babies because there is no fair way to enforce such a law without harming the innocent child.
In the essay, “Licensing Parents” the author Hugh Lafollette argues that a licensing system would protect children and society overall. For Lafollette, a licensing system would train parents to obtain a basic level of expertise and would separate those who stand a serious risk to children. His argument for parental licensing is based on an effortless set of parallels. The most obvious example that he gives is the licensing system that governs the driving of cars. He says if you want to drive a car, you must earn a driving license which involves passing a test of comprehension and skills that establishes a “minimum” level of competence.
Today, obtaining a license is necessary for a many activities including: driving, hunting, fishing, scuba diving, teaching, and practicing medicine, to name a few. In recent debate, licensing another aspect in our lives has arisen: parenting. Although incompetent parents exist, the need for a license to parent is an unethical and unconstitutional requirement that is impossible to regulate both before and after the birth of the child.
We are required to obtain a license before you get married and driving a motor vehicle, yet we aren’t required a license to become parents. Should people have to obtain a license to become parents? Is it really safe to leave an infant or 2-4 year old left with a possibly aggressive or inexperienced parent? Children aren’t very safe left alone with an inexperienced parent , ESPECIALLY if they are single or by themselves. People should have to get a license for several reasons: Abuse, most people are poorly prepared, and some people (like teens or some adults) influence their kids . Not just with drug or alcohol , but just their personality can greatly influence them.
Parental Licensing Should a couple have to acquire a parental license to have a child and become parents? Becoming a parent is something every one should be allowed to do with out a license but they should take into account their situation and if they are even ready to have a child. In the memoir, The Glass Castle, wrote by Jeannette Walls has gave many examples on why parents should have a license.
There is a need for safe-haven laws because a growing number of young mothers are giving birth to children in less than ideal family situations. An unwed, teenage girl may give birth to a child, and then out of sheer panic and acute depression, leave the child behind in an unsafe environment. These laws would significantly reduce the risk that a newborn will be abandoned in a situation that jeopardizes their survival. The laws also offer anonymity and immunity from prosecution for the parent who chooses to drop their baby off, for whatever reasons, at a safe-haven.
Currently, family around the world have different way to take care their own children. Some of parents are very care too much about their children and some maybe not even care. However, some of parents are very care to much about their children. they don’t think that can extremely harmful to their children and adolescents because of their to much overly involved in children's life and overprotective .In fact, Helicopter parenting family who is overly involved in their own children and Some Helicopter parenting family had Bubble-wrapping our children that overprotective parenting .they don’t think , when they do like this can be bored the children life,make their kid stress, feel alone and hopeless because of them too much overprotective. For example, on these articles I had read before BUBBLE-WRAPPING OUR CHILDREN by Michael Ungar, “Helicopter parenting Deliver Benefit” By Don Aucoin and there two article are different.
In life you need certain licenses to do or have certain things for example, you need a license to drive, own a gun, own a dog, practice medicine, and get married; so why not a license to parent? We could minimize those statistical numbers regarding child abuse if we simply establish a system by which a person or persons wanting to be a parent would have to go through in order to have a baby. First, you have to be 21 years of age in order to put in a request at “stork court.” Second, individuals and/or couples would go through a series of tests conducted by the government. Tests such as a background check, a psychological evaluation, a through physical by medical professional to make sure they were healthy enough to take care of a child, drug test, parenting class and academic aptitude test. Once they passed those tests they would move on to the next phase which would be a test of their strength, determination, patience, intelligence and problem solving skills. The second phase would be a blend of Fear Factor meets America Ninja Warrior; think it as Parenthood boot camp. Imagine our contestants running through a maze called
In chapter four of her book Genetic Dilemmas, Dena Davis asserts that it is unethical for parents to subject their children to genetic testing for the markers of adult-onset genetic diseases because it places an unfair constraint on a child’s right to an open future. It both removes the child’s ability to choose whether to be tested as an adult and has the potential to negatively alter the overall trajectory of their lives. While the current consensus amongst medical professionals is that such testing should be prohibited (Davis, _____), many concerned parents correctly point out that discouraging such testing creates a conflict of interests between the “beneficence model of patient care and the rights of parents to their own autonomy”
In Improvements in Prenatal Genetic Testing Raise Ethnic Issues, R. J. Crayton produced an article about prenatal testing and whether or not parents should be allowed to have these tests done. First the situation of a high risk baby who will have a disability or defect after birth, so the parents decide to abort the child is being viewed as an inequality to the disabled community. Secondly, certain adoptions are put on hold since the biological parents chose to not carry the unborn child through the entire pregnancy, however, the surrogate mother wants to carry the child through the entire term. Lastly, research shows that the results can be a false positive, so unintentionally the parents decide not to keep the unknown, but healthy baby.
The Children Act 1989 is the first document that introduced the concept of parental responsibility instead of parental rights as the welfare of all children is paramount and the recognition of early problems can have a faster outcome. It is the local authorities duty to identify,
The testing is not a bad idea as such but it should not be done to children. This regards to personal autonomy where it would be better if the testing is delayed until an individual is old enough to make his or her own decision about the test. A person’s genetic information should be private and counselling should be done to elucidate the basis for and consequences of the test in question. Individuals should be allowed to choose when and which
Being a parent comes with a lot of responsibility and difficult decision making. You always have your child's best interest at heart, but sometimes your child may disagree with the rules you have set down. That is why, I believe, the perfect parenting style is democratic. You can compromise with your child, but still have basic rules you want them to follow, without them feeling targeted or that you are being unfair. When i become a parent, I want to make sure my children have guidelines. I want them to be able to make their own mistakes and learn from them. Their health, their type of entertainment and the toys they play with are three major, broad categories that I would like to have a say in, along with their input of course.
As stated earlier, one of the main reason that the Natural Law does not support the use of contraception is because it may prevent implantation and subsequent development of a fertilized egg, which is unacceptable since this fertilized egg is a human life. But it does not necessarily follow that a microscopic bundle of cells requires the same rights as the fully grown adult whose body it is using. Judith Jarvis Thompson states
Though once assumed to be simply miniature adults, children, any persons under the age of 16, no longer have full legal capacity. The limitations on legal capacity, however, serve to protect them from acting on less than adequate knowledge rather than to restrict them; therefore, children have sufficient legal capacity that any persons under 16 might ever need.