Mandatory Parent License May be too Extreme

Lafollette suggests that potential parents should be subject to a licensing test that when completed indicates whether a person is fit to be a parent or not. The proposed test would determine the likely-hood that one would abuse one's child. One question that immediately came to mind was what technique the test would use to determine who is unfit to be a parent. Lafollette suggests that a combination of one's history and a specific personality test could be used to determine this. He acknowledges that the test may not be 100 percent accurate, but believes that the benefits out-weigh the costs. I think that while the laws for having a child should be stricter, employing a license test that by law must be completed by all potential parents in order to have a child is too extreme.

There is one particular case in which being subjected to a mandatory parent licensing test seems morally wrong. Individuals who grew up in an abusive home have been shown to be more likely to abuse their children. This would make them a great risk when it comes to allowing them to have children and according to the methods used to test competancy, they would likely fail the test. Failing someone based on something cannot control such as the environment in which they were raised is immoral, despite the risk it may place on that person's future children. It is wrong to punish someone for a past that they cannot control especially when there is no guarantee that they will be abusive.

Another question that is raised, which is not discussed in the paper is who is required to have a license? Is it just the potential mother or the potential father as well. The mother obviously plays a very large role in the child's life, but the father does as well in teaching the child and raising the child. Is he also subject to this test? Lafollette indicates that we need not punish a parent for having a child without a license, but instead just put the baby up for adoption. This seems extremely harsh and leaves me wondering if her means that all babies from non-licensed parents are put up for adoption as soon as they are born like a forced relinquishing of their child. It is cruel to take a child away from its parents without just cause and so I believe that if a form of licensing were put into practice, then it should not be mandatory.

It seems that Lafollette's less extreme parenting licensing policy is not only more practical but more morally permissible. He explains that mandatory license may not be necessary. Instead, individuals who decide to take the licensing test could be given incentives and those who refused could be subject to greater scrutiny by social services. This variation provides people with options rather than dictating what they can and cannot do. In this case the unlicensed mother would only be watched more carefully to ensure that her child is not abused rather than having the baby taken away from her. Equating a person's ability to procreate and raise a child to being competent to drive a car seems far fetched. While both acts performed unwisely can lead to harm of others, having your driver's license denied does not dictate what one can do with their body. Forcing someone to become licensed in order to reproduce infringes upon an individual's rights.