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 this essay I hope to analyse the 31st amendment to the Constitution by firstly, evaluating it's purpose and secondly, comparing it to previous case law and predicting it's legal impact. It is firstly helpful to note that the article being amended is relating to the welfare of children . It is arguable that the, Consitution has prevoiusly failed in it's protection for children and so this amendment is aiming to tackle this failure and offer children stronger protection. Below I will give an evaluation of the amendments and the impact these amendments may have, from a legal perspective.
We live in a “recreational drug culture”, with the current criminalization of illicit drugs being driven by the common but not entirely universally accepted assumption that negative externalities will instead be placed in on society. Addressing the seemingly ever-infinite "war on drugs", in "Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use", Douglas Husak argues in favour of the decriminalization of drugs in terms of not criminalizing the use of such recreational drugs. In this paper, I will dispute that Kusak 's argument succeeds because of the lack of justification for prohibition, and the counterproductiveness and how numerically evident the ineffectiveness of these contemporary punitive policies are.
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...
Swan, Rita. 2010. “Equal rights for children under the law” Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc
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.
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...
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.
Does a child need both parents? Does a young boy need a father figure around? Does the government provide help for single parents? What role do step-parents and step-siblings play? With much speculation, this topic has become a very intriguing argument.
Rosen, Christine. "The Parents Who Don't Want To Be Adults." Commentary 127.7 (2009): 31. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.
Commercial surrogacy commodifies children because by paying the surrogate mother to give up her child, they treat the child as an object of exchange or commodity that can be bought and sold. As any business transaction, the parents give money for the exchange of an object, the child. The parents get their desired child and the mother gets the money, but what about what thee child think about this event? The parents and surrogate mother’s action were done with self-interest. It could be argued that they wanted the best for the child. However, the first priority in the intentional procreation of the child was not the welfare of the child but rather to give it up to the parents in exchange of money. Additionally, women’s labor is commodified because the surrogate mother treats her parental rights as it was a property right not as a trust. In other words, the decisions taken concerning the child are not done primarily for the benefit of the child. The act of the mother relenting her parental rights is done for a monetary price. She disposes of her parental rights, which are to be managed for the welfare of the owner, as if they were property right, which are to be handled for personal
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.
A child 's life is severely compromised when raised by a single parent because of limited resources, reasoning, and the destruction of a "perfect family". We know that the parents ' role is give a provide for a child with a safe, secure, nurturing, loving, and supportive environment, one that allows the offspring to become a happy and healthy youth. This sort of experience allows the youth to develop the knowledge, values, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to become an adult making a productive contribution to self, family, community, and society from their own parents who have different type of background to raise a children.
middle of paper ... ... In the traditional society, the father’s only focus is on earning an income for the family which has a direct impact on the family members due to the lack of time spent bonding with his children and wife. The responsibility of the children falls on both parents’ shoulders, not just on the mothers. However, this is also an issue in modern society, if mothers rely too much on day-care and do not spend enough time with their children, then the same thing that happens to the father happens to the mother.