Parent-Licensing Program and Violating Someone's Rights - Essay Example

We could implement a parent-licensing program without violating anyone’s rights.

Conclusion

Therefore we should implement a parent licensing program

1. Reasons for Believing the Premises of the Argument

Premise 1

Licensing is required for all activities that have an inherent potential to result to harm if not exercised properly. Such activities demand that the doer is competent enough to avert any possible harm or minimize it. This aspect guides a government’s decision on what activities to license and which not to. This minimal competence is the one demonstrated by pharmacists, lawyers, and doctors through training and practice (Lafollette 522). Lafollette states that any activity similar to the ones above needs regulation and that parenting is one of them. He, additionally, asserts that if there is a reliable procedure for vetting parents then licensing should be the way to go. He argues that parents have the potential of causing grave harm to their children both physically and psychologically. He explains that annually hundreds of thousands of children are physically abused while others are neglected. Such treatment by parents remains as scars both physical and psychological for the rest of the children’s lives. Such children end up engaging in criminal activities and even proceed to harm their children as well and thus end up as unhappy adults (Lafollette 523). This explanation means that parenting can cause harm and thus qualifies as a licensable activity.

Premise 2

When talking about violating the rights or freedoms of others in licensing parenting, Lafollette uses human sacrifice and slander to explain. He states that people have the freedom of speech and expression but this freedom is limited to things like slander where the latter violates the right of the victim. The same goes for human sacrifices which are religious practices not covered by the first amendment where there is freedom of worship. He further asserts that having children, by itself, is not a right but a responsibility bestowed on both parents. When this responsibility is neglected or exercised carelessly then the right of the parents ceases to exist. Therefore, when parents can prove their ability to procreate without violating the rights of others, then they should be licensed to proceed.

1. Focused Objection to the Argument

Premise 1

The procedure to vet future harmless parents may not be foolproof and will end up resulting in the same issues that the license aimed to avert. It is easy to question how a test for parenting competence can be formulated to be reliable. One of the mistakes Lafollette makes is to casually compare a potentially controversial issue; licensing parenting to others that are not at all controversial; licensing driving and people to practice medicine among others (Lafollette 522). This is a disjointed argument that simply portrays a fallacious intent to convince. It is also important to note that just as there is no measure for a good doctor and a bad one, there will also be no particular yardstick for measuring who is likely to be a better parent than the other. Each household has its challenges and all children and different in their ways and so are the parents. The qualitative aspect involved in determining which individuals to license or not runs far deeper.

Premise 2

Parenting from Lafollette’s argument seems to be closely tied to activities like practicing medicine or law. Many more activities can potentially result in the violation of others’ rights yet they are not licensed. People have the right to procreate and raise their children and licensing will violate this right (Lafollette 524). With respect to the right to say whatever one wants, slander is one aspect of communication that violates the right of others but speech is not licensed as an activity. The imposition of such a license can be construed to mean that the government is practicing eugenics.  The minority in society, for example, who possess genes for ailments that can potentially be inherited, may fail to be licensed. People have the right to procreate and raise their children and licensing will violate this right.