More handpicked essays just for you.
The negative impact of child abuse
How does abuse and neglect affect children
The negative impact of child abuse
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Hugh LaFollette’s “Licensing Parents,” he says that we should implement a parent licensing program. In this paper I will explain his argument for this view and offer a focused objection on it. To begin explaining the views of LaFollette’s argument, I will start by breaking down what he means by regulating potential harmful activities. Our society requires “automobile operators to have licenses and we forbid people from practicing medicine, law, pharmacy, and psychiatry unless they have satisfied certain licensing requirements” (LaFollette 182). Society’s decision to regulate each of these activities is because they could potentially be harmful to others and to provide safe performance of each requires a certain level of competence. To demonstrate …show more content…
Like stated above, activities that have the potential to cause harm to others ought to be regulated in some way. With this being said, the main goal Hugh focuses on is to demonstrate that the licensing of parents is theoretically desirable because it causes harm to others. He says, “The potential for harm is apparent: each year more than half a million children are physically abused or neglected by their parents. Many millions more are psychologically abused or neglected-not given love, respect, or a sense of self-worth” (LaFollette 184). He then says, “Any activity that is potentially harmful to others and requires certain demonstrated competence for its safe performance, is subject to regulation-that is, it is theoretically desirable that we regulate it” (LaFollette 183). Therefore, with this being said, the premises’ LaFollette uses in his argument can be stated …show more content…
To defend his first premise, LaFollette targets the licensing of automobile operators because “The potential harm is obvious: incompetent drivers can and do maim and kill people. The best way we have of limiting this harm without sacrificing the benefits of automobile travel is to require that all drivers demonstrate at least minimal competence” (LaFollette 183). The potential harm that can occur from driving is the reason why it is theoretically desirable to regulate it and therefore moves to the second premise. Like stated above, bad parenting causes harm to millions of children that are left neglected by their parents. These “Abused children bear the physical and psychological scars of maltreatment throughout their lives. Far too often they turn to crime. They are far more likely than others to abuse their own children. Even if these maltreated children never harm anyone, they will probably never be well-adjusted, happy adults. Therefore, parenting clearly satisfies the first criterion of activities subject to regulation” (LaFollette 185). The harm children receive from bad parenting leads to a downfall of events that can spread more harm to others through crime or abuse to other children. These points are strong reasons to believing the argument LaFollette writes about to implement
...l now be given the power to interfere in cases where parents have failed in their duties towards the child. This is extremely important as it allows the State to intervene in cases where there has been a failure, which was difficult to do in the past. This new role of protecting children's rights is favourable as it will, hopefully, prevent any failure by the State to children in unacceptable circumstances/situation.
Did the state’s compulsory education n laws, which requires child’s attendance until age 16, infringe upon the parents’ First Amendment rights by criminalizing the parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?
In this first paragraph, the author battles with a commonly held belief that children are the “property” of their parents for a certain amount of time in their lives. The author constructs upon the topic slowly by disclosing his problem with the idea of children as property, only to bring his own life experiences into count by explaining his adolescence with a dysfunctional family. By bringing in his personal experiences, the author is in some sense considered an authority figure on the topic of a child’s life with a dysfunctional family. He compares the concept of parental custody with apprenticeship, and he puts it all together by creating a practical solution to the problem. His true thesis sentence is seen in the last paragraph where he says, “We have invested far too heavily in the unproved “equity” called the nuclear family; that stock is about to crash and we ought to being finding escape options” (p 196). By gradually giving the reader background info on the problems of the modern dysfunctional family, and then stating the thesis at the end, he very clearly gets his argument across.
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.”
In this article written by the author Bruce Feiler, titled “Teenage Drivers? Be Very Afraid”, he talks about how he suggest the parents to stop being helicopter parents and allow their children to be independent. However, other professionals’ suggestions are the opposite when teenagers start to drive. As a result of the teenagers’ immaturity, the parents are told to be more involved because their child’s life may be in danger. As stated in the article by Nichole Moris “the most dangerous two years of your life are between 16 and 17, and the reason for that is driving.” There are various factors that play huge roles through this phrase of the teenagers’ life: other passengers, cellphones, and parents. In 2013, under a million teenage drivers were involved in police-reported crashes, according to AAA. The accidents could have been more but many teenage accidents go unreported. As a result, one of their recommendations to the parents is to not allow their children to drive with other passengers: other passengers can big a huge distraction and could increase the rate of crashes by 44 percent. That risk doubles with a second passenger and quadruples with three or more. Furthermore, as technology has taken over teenagers’ lives, the parents should suggest to those teenagers who insists on using the phones that the only safe place for it to be: in a dock, at eye level, on the dashboard. The worst place is the cup holder, the driver’s lap, and the passenger’s seat. Next, professionals also suggest that the parents implement their own rule and even continue the ones like the graduated driver’s licenses regulations. This regulation includes restrictions like not allowing their children to drive between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. To
" Web. The Web. The Web. 15 Mar. 2010. http://www.idebate.org. Gregory, Ted. A. Should 16-Year-Olds Drive?
In what situation is it justifiably reasonable for the government to intervene in the process of child development, before the child is born or after? Is it logical or ethical to play eugenics in the sake of raising children for a better future? In Hugh LaFollete’s essay “Licensing Parents”, he offers a new approach to parenting, the right to license parents. LaFollete argues that the licensing of parents is not only “theoretically desirable”, he also lays out how licensing could be established by talking about the “rights to have a child”. And although LaFollete does makes a good point about why licensing parents is a good idea, I will also point out some flaws in his essay to his position.
“I am superman; I am invincible”, is what one young man thought of himself on August 30, 2009. He left a friend’s house with a young woman in the car with him; it was a dark night and he was feeling good about himself. He thought he would try to impress the young girl and went way too fast. As he topped the hill, he ran off the road, over-corrected, and lost control of his vehicle. The accident claimed both their lives. Numerous car accidents involve young teenage drivers. Raising the minimum driving age to 16 would greatly reduce the number of automobile accidents involving teen drivers because they lack experience on the road, they lack maturity, and they would have less accidents resulting in safer roads.
The driving age should not be raised to 18 years old because teenagers have responsibilities to be go to certain places, if teenagers learn to drive early on in life they will be more comfortable driving and cautious when they get older, and an opposing view point is that teenager’s reflexes are not fully developed or equipped to safely handle an accident. II. Teenagers have responsibilities to be go to certain places. A. Teenagers normally have responsibilities to go to places like sport practices, band meetings or even school meetings. B. Teenagers should be able to drive themselves so they do not miss their activity because they have no one to take them.
In this paper I will argue that licensing parents is not only impractical but irrational. Hugh Laffollette, the author, argues many premises. However, many of his premises are assumptions and in the end are begging the question and not supporting his conclusion that licensing parents would help determine who is fit to become a parent and also that doing so would help children to become better adequate for adult life. Licensing parents would be a system that would be tedious and even hard to establish. So in this paper I will argue this point by explaining that it could be nearly impossible for us to establish a concrete way to determine who should be licensed and who should not.
Rosen, Christine. "The Parents Who Don't Want To Be Adults." Commentary 127.7 (2009): 31. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.
Teens only make up seventeen percent of the population today, but almost twenty percent of fatal crashes are due to teenagers behind the wheel. Growing numbers suggest changing the driving age to eighteen and some even believe that changing it to twenty-one may save even more lives. With a sixteen year old behind the wheel, accidents are even more likely to occur when compared to a seventeen year old (Boulard). With so much new technology in today’s society there are more distractions on the road than ever before; therefore the legal driving age should be raised to save more lives. If we do not act quickly, then more lives will be lost.
Family Law (Law Express) 2th edition, by Jonathon Herring, published by Pearson Education Limited 2009
The debate question that LaFollete argues is: should the state require all parents to be licensed? While many would say no to the state having a hand in their child’s rearing, LaFollete position in regards to the debate question is affirmative.
In addition to teenagers gaining independence and freedom with a license, parents also gain more freedom as well. Teenagers who cannot drive rely heavily on parents, siblings, and other people to chauffeur them around. Not only does this cost more for the driver, but schedule arrangements must constantly be made and even cancelled in order to drive teenagers to where needed.... ... middle of paper ... ... Deciding to raise the age does not seem like a prime choice, because not only does the argument include age as a factor, but it greatly affects the lives of everyday people.