Supporting Arguments for Parent Licensing In Hugh Lafollette’s paper, “Licensing Parents” he talks about the need for government licensing of parents. His argument states that for any activity that is harmful to others, requires competence, and has a reliable procedure for determining competence, should require licensing by the government. This argument relates to parenting because it can be harmful to children, requires competence to raise those children, and we can assume that a reliable procedure can be formulated. Therefore, parenting should require licensing by the government. I agree with Lafollette and shall focus on supporting him by addressing the most practical objections: There is no reliable procedure for identifying competent parents and it is impossible to reasonably enforce parent regulations.
Despite the actions that come from discipline and go against the parents’ moral values, parents are strict with their children in an effort to look out for the child’s best interests. Others may disagree and view strict parenting as a negative effect on the child’s brain development, but in contrast, parents are strict in order to guide their children down the right path to prosperity. There are different types of parenting, despite whether the parents are good or bad people. If there is one thing strict parenting guarantees is an interest in the child and their well
There are critics who feel that the stigma in our society toward gays being accepted is a conflict of issues. This form of relation may affect the welfare of a child’s upbringing. The prospect of a nontraditional upbringing in a same-sex partnership, or marriage ought to be a problem when raising children. Some feel that there is no real negative influence that this form of parenting has on a child. Politics has raised concern, but there is a limited amount of research in this area to corroborate this concern.
This is important because if the parent doesn’t have a good relationship with their child, it would lead to tension between those two. Planned Parenthood of America Inc. says that. “A good parent teen relationship includes respect, understanding, trust and happiness.” Teens are less likely to take risks if they have a good relationship with their parents. The main reason why parents and teens have bad relationships these days is because of the lack of those small factors. The biggest factor we all have issues with is trust.
Homework #2 1) This study is up for ethical questioning due to the researchers’ lack of concern about the lasting effects of the study on the infants. These actions would violate the principle of “beneficence”, according the Belmont Report. Aside from the reality that mothers probably have reservations about treating their baby coldly in the first place, an infant’s social development occurs at a deep and rapid rate during their infancy. Negative effects may occur later in these infants’ lives due to poor and inconsistent attention from their mothers. Therefore, the methods of the study, in order examine the construct of attachment style and bonding, should be reevaluated so that the infants are put at less risk in order to gain the knowledge the researchers seek.
Many in today’s world have deemed these sorts of practices unethical and immoral and some forms of religion refuse the idea of it. Ideas centered around selecting the gender of ones offspring has been a constantly ascending issue due to the fact that it clashes between the parents wishes and what is right for the world and the natural process. Going through with gender selection processes poses the threat that the offspring will simply be mediums of their parents desires rather than the child they were meant to be. This could jump-start a trend in the direction of both good and bad selection of unborn babies features and characteristics (Robertson 3). Selecting the gender of ones unborn baby for nonmedical reasons is unethical and immoral due to discarding unwanted eggs, discrepancies regarding religion, gender bias selections and instability, and the overall disruption of the natural processes for our future generations development.
In chapter four of her book Genetic Dilemmas, Dena Davis asserts that it is unethical for parents to subject their children to genetic testing for the markers of adult-onset genetic diseases because it places an unfair constraint on a child’s right to an open future. It both removes the child’s ability to choose whether to be tested as an adult and has the potential to negatively alter the overall trajectory of their lives. While the current consensus amongst medical professionals is that such testing should be prohibited (Davis, _____), many concerned parents correctly point out that discouraging such testing creates a conflict of interests between the “beneficence model of patient care and the rights of parents to their own autonomy” (Davis, 75). The availability of commercial online and mail-order genetic testing kits further exacerbates this dilemma by enabling these dissenting parents to obtain test results for their children. Davis ultimately makes a convincing argument that “parental requests for genetic information about their children, when they have no immediate relevance to medical intervention or disease prevention, should generally be resisted” (Davis, 87).
Parents, with the extreme exceptions, want to do what is in the best interest of their child. They believe they are entitled to make decisions about the welfare of their child and that it is a violation of their right for anyone to order them to take measures they believe are wrong. The views of parents with binding religious and moral beliefs, greatly conflict all too often with the medical world. When is it justifiable to overrule a parent’s decision to refuse medical treatment for their child? I will argue that the Harm Principle serves as a justifiable means to overruling a parent’s decision.
One main objection to cloning is that it will naturally force parents to treat their new child differently than they would one that is born through sexual union. Technically the process of reproduction would have been different, but Kass sees no reason why parents would follow this process for producing a child unless they truly wanted it. This argument is generally used to warn others of the potential social harms that a child might face. A child that is born from cloning will be different from other children in the way he or she was created as well as in th... ... middle of paper ... ...tical morality, ethical arithmetic, a statistical sense of obligation-not the first-come-first-served simple doctor-patient ethics of the horse-and buggy era. (4)We shall have to learn to live without absolutes, such as "Our sole obligation is to the patient under care" and "Life must be prolonged as long as possible" and "We must not disclose what we have learned in professional confidence" and "No cost is too much to cure a human ill." Instead of moral norms or principles of such undiscriminating and universal application we must make medical decisions by a situation ethics; what is right depends on loving concern for persons and the variables in each case.
﻿“Can parenting or child rearing be non-punitive?” Is one of the most common questions that parents ask. If spanking is so effective, why do most people have such an uneasy feeling about it? Some how we cannot silence our inner doubts about the long term effects of physical punishment. We are a little embarrassed by the use of force and we keep saying to ourselves, “”here ought to be a better way of rearing children.” Another reason is, within ourselves, no one wants to be hit. While hitting releases anger and frustration, and might work in the short-term, what parents really want is for children to be self controlled and disciplined.