I disagree with Lafollette’s claim that we should grant licenses in order for people to become parents. One problem with his claim is that there is a difference between licensing physicians who harm actual people and stopping from licensing parents who harm theoretical children. The difference is that those children do not exist and are disallowed the choice to exist. It is impossible to tell whether the children would choose life or death. It seems hard to say that we are harming them more by not allowing the children to exist.
I also detest the use of a person’s past which is unchangeable and was not chosen. I do not think that how someone’s parents treated them or other things they did not choose should be incorporated into any such licensing because it in no way reflects what kind of decisions an individual is capable of making. It may be very utilitarian due to statistical analysis but it disregards their rights. I find it difficult to believe that if we are born with the ability to reproduce that it should be restricted. It seems difficult to believe that denying people reproductive rights and the right of life to offspring is the morally correct decision. From a practicality standpoint it seems that the offspring that were born to unlicensed parents could be at a disadvantage because they are being taken from their biological parents and it is hard to tell whether they would have been better off with them or not. I wonder how many people Lafollette’s licensing program would hurt for the greater good.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If "disallowing" the children to is considered more harmful to you. then that means everybody is doing that such harm by not having as many babies as they can. If a couple have 1 child, are they being of harm for not having the second one and "disallowing" the baby to exist? how about the third, fourth, and fifth baby?
ReplyDelete