In the essay Licensing Parents, LaFollette argues that the state should require all parents to be licensed (182). Though LaFollette considers some theoretical and practical objections to his claim, he gives no particular attention to how parenting could be precisely defined as potentially harmful to children, what specific competence would be required for parenting to be done safely, and how reliably such competence could be determined. In this paper, I maintain that, since LaFollette’s argument does not provide an adequate clarification of the definition of harm and the attributes of competence, his argument needs serious revision. After describing LaFollette’s basic rationale for licensing parents, I will indicate that LaFollette’s ambiguous explanations for harm and attributes for competence are problematic. In addition, I will show that even if parenting satisfies LaFollette’s criteria, there are special reasons why it should not be licensed. Though this does not prove LaFollette’s idea to be false, I will suggest that if LaFollette offers a better definition of harm and an adequate explanation for competence, his argument will be stronger with a greater feasibility. LaFollette starts his argument by presenting the fact that “our society normally regulates a certain range of activities” like driving, practicing medicine, law, pharmacy, etc. (182). In addition, the decision to restrict such activities derives from a plausible, but inexplicitly formulated rationale that the restricted activities could be “potentially harmful to others”, “safe performance of the activities require a certain competence”, and “we have a moderately reliable procedure for determining that competence” (183). As a result, it is theoretically desira... ... middle of paper ... ...to avoid LaFollette’s conclusion is finding special reasons why licensing parents is not theoretically desirable, I have demonstrated that it is actually possible to find such evidence to undermine his conclusion, because he does not consider the distinct nature of parenting. Consequently, licensing parents seems to be LaFollette’s creative approach to look at our society in a non-intuitional perspective. Although this paper does not prove LaFollette’s argument to be false, the deficiencies discussed in this paper could lead to various false interpretations of his argument. Hence, if LaFollette could offer a clearer argument to get rid of the misunderstanding of what he really meant by harm and competence, his argument would harvest more support than objections. Works Cited LaFollette, Hugh. 1980. “Licensing Parents.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9:182-97.
Melanson, Glen. “How the Contractualist Account of Preconception Negligence Undermines Prenatal Reproductive Autonomy.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38.4 (Aug. 2013): 420-425. Health Reference Center Academic. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.
In her essay “Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate,” Margaret Olivia Little examines whether it should be permissible for the state to force the intimacy of gestation on a woman against her consent. Little concludes that “mandating gestation against a woman’s consent is itself a harm - a liberty harm” (p. 303). She reaches this conclusion after examining the deficiencies in the current methods used to examine and evaluate the issues of abortion. Their focus on the definition of a “person” and the point in time when the fetus becomes a distinct person entitled to the benefits and protections of the law fails to capture “the subtleties and ambivalences that suffuse the issue” (p. 295). Public debate on the right to life and the right to choose has largely ignored the nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus through the gestational period and a woman’s right to either accept or decline participation in this relationship.
...This idea respects the adult person in the moral community, not the infant. It can be compared to the idea that it is wrong to destroy someone’s home or natural recourses. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.189).
Finally, Lafollette’s argument is not even addressed properly. He uses term such as “theoretically desirable” which makes his argument seem unpersuasive and uncertain. He states, “I shall argue that the state should require all parents to be licensed. My Main goal is to demonstrate that the licensing of parents is theoretically desirable. I argue a general licensing program should be established. Finally, I shall briefly suggest that the reason many people object to licensing is that they think parents, particularly biological parents, own or have a natural sovereignty over their children.”
Healy, M. (1999, July 4) Debate Rises on Parents’ Influence Over Children. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on 03/09/11 from: http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/04/news/mn-52878
Paul’s argument is that under the normative model of making decisions, the decision to have a child can never be rational. For Paul, the normative decis...
Sue Axon, from Manchester, is a mother of five children who filed an amendment over the Department of Health’s updated guidelines in the High Court in 2006. The focus of her action is to honor the rights of the parents over their children in terms of having an abortion and taking contraceptives. She stated that the guidelines given by the Department of Health undermines the roles of parents (BMJ Publishing Group, 2005). Mr. Axon’s attempt failed. Mr. Philip Sales said that implementing the “right to know” of parents will result to discouragement of young women to seek medical advice regarding their sexual
In Favor of Emancipation for Children Imagine that you're a young teenager living with your mother. She left your father, an abusive and violent man, when you were 10. Your mother is killed in a car accident 5 years later. Because your mother did not prepare a will, the state requires you to live with your father. The only thing you can do to save your own life is to terminate your father's rights by becoming emancipated.
Around the 1950’s, the media perpetuated the idea of the picturesque family unit; children made the shift from being a necessary evil to a symbol of status. Children were no longer meant to help sustain the family, so much as meant to be trophies of the parents’ competentness. Children became an outlet for parents to mold and live through vicariously: the more perfect your child was, the better parent you were. The problem is not that people want to have children, but that many cannot afford to take care of their spawn. Whether you are a young mother utilizing the assistance of government programs such as WIC or simply writing off your children on your taxes, you are making use of government incentive to procreate. Reproduction is completely natural; however, once backed by government incentive, the motivations for having children can take an unnatural turn. Children may be a symbol of love and unity, but it has expanded beyond the family unit. Many children have become the responsibility of the Unite...
This essay will first address the statute used and interpretation of the threshold test by the courts, and then focus on cases involving vulnerable children to assess whether the statute in The Children Act 1989 is sufficient in protecting these children from harm. I will look at the argument in favour of the current approach taken by the courts, and the counter-argument in favour of changing the current approach. The arguments are delicately balanced and the law is always developing, so it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court resolves this issue in future.
Government passes law to the society to prevent the risk factor that is of significant harm to their health or life. Some of those activities that cause risk are drinking and driving, use of dangerous weapons. We notice that these activities pose a risk to others who are not engaged in these activities. But there are activities that pose a danger to the participant who engage in them. For example, drinking, smoking, rock climbing. Since all states follow freedom, the state cannot pass laws that forbid consenting adults from participating in such activities just because they cause harm to them. A person engaging in an activity with full knowledge of the risks involved is morally justified. It is morally wrong to get into a person’s freedom just to prevent him from harming himself.
The argument that parenthood is natural, instinctual, and predates civilized society (and can continue to exist outside of civilized society) seems odd in light of the plethora of books, websites, groups, and so on devoted to helping parents learn to be good parents. All our self-help materials dedicated to this topic seem to suggest that parenting is not purely instinctual, but that education is also required. (Campo-Engelstein)
A major problem in our society today is the absence of fathers in the home and in the lives of their children. I believe that growing up in a two parent household gives a child the best chance to be successful. My theory is that the absence of a father greatly affects the outcome of the child’s life and limits their opportunity for success. For the sake of this argument success will be measured by education level, mental state and crime. I will explore what effects, if any, the absence of a father has on these factors of success.
Some parents believe that while they had a partner who equally contributed in the making of a life that was brought into the world, they should be held accountable and be responsible for the child as well. Whether or not the parents of the child are married, it is possible for both parents to remain active participants in the child’s life and still share the responsibility of raising them. When you are a single, adult person, you have one main responsibility, and that is the responsibility to care for yourself. That’s it, just you! However, when you and your partner or significant other agrees to have children, you must understand that the duty of raising healthy, responsible individuals starts with understanding the role as parents. Of course you don’t have to be a perfect parent to raise healthy, highly intelligent children. You are, however, absolutely crucial in your child’s life simply because you are your child’s parent. We only have one chance with our children, so while they are young, we must make the most of it. This is the window of opportunity to build a...
Tatchyn, Elizabeth and Bottom Line Research. “Negligence and the Parental Duty to Supervise Children”. Alberta: Bottom Line Research. Web. http://www.bottomlineresearch.ca/articles/articles/pdf/Negligence%20and%20the%20Parental%20Duty%20to%20Supervise%20Children.pdf.