In our society, it is commonly overlooked how a person was shaped. How they came to be the individual they are today. The influencing factors that grew their personality, interests, and mannerisms. Becoming a parent is one of the most pivotal and vital roles a human being can embody to impact the future of the world. Because of the crucial impact parenting can have, many question what qualifies and entitles a person to become a parent. To perform a task that can impact others in a potentially harmful way, the state often requires a license to be obtained. This idea of licensing parents is explored and argued due to the potential harm that parenting has towards the future generations of humankind. In Hugh LaFollette’s essay, he argues that the state should require all aspiring parents to be licensed. I believe that due to the current implementation of child protective services and childbirth being a personable activity, the act of licensing parents is immoral and should not be made lawful by the state. Throughout this paper, I will analyze LaFollette’s argument, recognize the objections that are made towards him, and as well address my critique towards his argument.
The controversial topic of conceivably licensing parents has many differentiating assertions. Some argue that parenting is a civil right, an act that is cherished and can lead to greater happiness. However, to the same degree, parenting can be challenging, dreaded, and cause harm to the child that is being nurtured. To begin his argument, LaFollette examines what practices the state requires a license for. The first case he uses to assert his claim is the process of obtaining a drivers license. Driving is an auto activity that can cause potential harm to innocent civilians, therefore the activity requires a minimal level of competence in order to enforce safety in society. The potential harm that the activity can cause includes a spectrum of destruction with the most extreme case being death. Because of this, the state has implemented a system where it can be determined if a person has demonstrated an adequate level of competence regarding operating a motorized vehicle. LaFollette declares that because of the risks and potential harm involved with driving, it can be assumed that the regulation of this activity is desired amongst society (LaFollette 183). From this case, LaFollette derives his first premise: if an activity is harmful to others, it should be regulated. He further defends this idea by stating other cases of state licensing such as the practice of medicine, surgery, and psychological evaluation. LaFollette addresses the sad reality that many who aspire to obtain a license may fail to do so due to lack of competence in the area of expertise. Lafollette acknowledges that being denied a license to a profession, ability, and desire can be an inconvenience if not devastating (LaFollette 183). Many people work their whole lives to become doctors, however, are denied the ability due to their failure of a final evaluation. Because of this, LaFollette asserts that the devastation and inconvenience of being denied a license is not a greater cause than that of the protection of innocent civilians to potential harm.
To determine the capability one possesses in order to qualify for a license in the specified expertise, the state has created many tests and evaluations. From this, LaFollette derives his second premise: we have a “moderately reliable” system to determine who is competent and who isn't regarding licensing principles. He recognizes that although licensing procedures can be effective they are also flawed. For example, when becoming licensed to drive, many times a driver may get lucky with the evaluator they demonstrated their skills to, however, may actually not be capable of performing the required level of safety. La Follette stresses that even though some competency tests are flawed, they are also effective and can regulate the number of flukes in society. He further states that if a procedure for licensing is severely flawed, then it should no longer be practiced until a sufficient procedure can be produced (LaFollette 184).
After careful evaluation and reviewing the cases where the state requires licensing and the procedures to do so, LaFollette concludes that parenting falls under the criteria stated in his two premises. LaFollette comes to this conclusion from connecting the two links of his premises. Premise one states that if an activity can cause harm to a person, then it should be regulated. Premise two claims that if there is a way to determine the capability and competence of an activity, then it should be implemented. LaFollette finds parenting to be potentially harmful as each year there are over half a million children who are abused, neglected, and psychologically damaged (LaFollette 185). Furthermore, he found that children who are subject to abuse or neglection turn to violence and crime, as well even if they are tended to later in their lives, they are never able to fully and properly assimilate into society.
Once LaFollette establishes his claim, he begins to recognize objections to his thesis. The first objection to his argument is the position that one cannot produce a procedure or test that could accurately predict whether or not a parent would mistreat their child. LaFollette rejects this objection by stating that due to criminology and medical diagnosis for mental illness, we possess certain base standards to out rule the parents that lie on the extreme side of the unfit parent population. This objection as well ties into the idea of civil rights: bearing a child is similar to that of freedom of speech. Although it is true that freedom of speech is a civil right, it can also be assumed that many people have a distorted sense of what is appropriate to say and what is not. Similarly, it can be assumed that many people have a distorted sense of what is an acceptable way to parent a child. Many believe that abuse and neglect are parts of shaping a child, that it can induce independence and strength. This can be refuted by many cases that prove people who have been incriminated or committed to mental institutions, have a background of abuse from their childhoods. LaFollette refutes this statement as well by declaring that parental applicants would be able to reapply, they would have the ability to attend therapy and counseling in order to assume the role of a “good” parent (LaFollette 189). Nashville General Hospital created a brief questionnaire that interviewed parents and sorted them into “high risk” and “low risk” groups regarding child abusement. The questionnaire proved to have significance when there was a considerable break down of child to parent interaction (LaFollette 191). LaFollette concludes that if results like these from Nashville General Hospital are combined with various psychological tests, a competent procedure for licensing parents could determine if an applicant is worthy. Therefore, LaFollette rejects the objection that there is no reasonable way to predict whether or not a potential parent would cause harm, malnourish, or overall mistreat their child.
A second viable objection to LaFollette’s argument of licensing parents is that the state cannot define what creates a “good parent”. LaFollette acknowledges that this objection lies true, however, he as well refutes this statement. He agrees that the state does not have to define what it means to be a “good parent”, in fact, all they have to do is to out rule the absolute worst parents. By eliminating criminal activity, pedophilia, and overall abusive behavior from the characteristics of parents, the hope is that the rate of abuse towards children from their parental guardians will decline. The idea of licensing parents is not to be cruel and create mass devastation to a wide population, merely ensure that the upbringing of the majority of children includes a healthy guardianship.
To conclude his argument, Lafollette mentions the course of adoption that many aspiring parents choose to take. The process of adoption is one that is rigorous, faulty, and highly investigative. However, it is proven that children who are adopted regardless of previous abuse, are five times less likely to endure more abuse and neglect by their adoptive parents versus their biological parents (LaFollette 194). It can be believed that there is a link between biological parents and their children to have a more loving bond than that of adoptive parents. However, this does not lie true to all adoptive parents and does not mean that the parents would not love their child at all. It merely states that due to evolutionary instincts, a biological parent feels a connection to the child that they produced from their DNA. LaFollette judges the process of licensing parents to be similar to that of adoption. It would entail a rigorous process of interviewing, background checks, and overall evaluation of lifestyle. LaFollette does acknowledge the possibility of licensing a faulty parent, as the same for an adoptive one, however, declares that in the end, the process would rear a more positive impact than negative. Throughout his essay, LaFollette creates a very sound argument that mentions both the positives and negatives to the idea of licensing parents. I agree with his premise that if an activity causes harm to an innocent person, then it should be licensed. I as well agree with his second premise stating that if there is a reliable procedure to determine competency in such activity, then it should be implemented. However, while I initially complied with his two premises, I now reject the idea of licensing parents. A personal objection I have to LaFollette’s argument revolves around the already implemented protection of children, child protective services. The state has previously created a form of parental licensing if the state deems a parent unfit through viewing how they interact with their children, the children are confiscated and given to a new guardian. Although this mechanism does not eliminate unfit parents immediately, it does allow aspiring parents a chance to bond with their biological children and parent them correctly. In addition to the state already possessing a procedure for relocating children in abusive homes, the act of licensing parents, in my mind, is an act that the state does not have the authority to do. The state should not be able to infringe upon one’s ability to have a family as that is beyond a civil right, it is an evolutionary right. Our world has evolved due to reproduction, it is the way one’s heritage and genes can live on. Having a child is a personable and intimate act, it does not fall under the category of functionality such as obtaining a drivers license. Hypothetically speaking, if the state were to create a procedure that could determine whether or not a parent portrayed qualities that would enable them to be “good parents”, it should only include minimalistic procedures. These procedures would include a background check for a criminal record, disabling mental illness, and extreme cases of poverty. For the criminal record portion, the incriminating charge would have to be an extreme case to completely out rule the possibility of becoming a parent. I say this as I truly believe in second chances, many people endure situations in their lives that do not present the best opportunities for them to make good choices. Parenting is not an easy task, there is no textbook that can teach one to become the picture perfect parent. Because of this, sometimes the best parents are ones who make mistakes and learn from them, they have the ability to grow and become phenomenal parents. La Follette states that a world of complete freedom would be undesirable, a world where anybody could become a doctor or operate a motorized vehicle. However, a world that is constructed of laws, prerequisites, and a government that can control all of your actions is hardly desirable either.