Rigoberto Ortega 11-29-11 Philosophy 108 Meyer Lafollette: Parental Licensure Objection In his essay about licensing parents

to be able to raise children, Lafollette addresses multiple objections about his proposal. One possible objection to licensing is that it violates a persons right to raise children as he/she sees fit. However, this objection stands on shaky ground, and can be disproven. The principal purpose of the licensing is to prevent children from coming to harm by being raised by parents who a) do not have the mental capacity to raise their children, b) do not have the means to raise their children, or c) could physically harm their children i.e neglect or abuse. In each of these cases, the objection does not stand. In the case of the parents who do not have the mental capacity, they do not know how to raise their children. If they are let to raise their children however they feel, they may do something that causes the child harm. Also, the parents may inadvertently impair the childs functions for social interaction. For example, take a parent who thinks the best way to raise children is set them free to the wild at age 5 and give minimal supervision until they turn 16. The child might develop great survival skills, and may become an independent, resilient individual. However, they may lack the capacity to function in groups or communicate well within society. They may come to resent the people around them, preferring to live off in the woods. They may become a lonely hermit, never

finding out what it is to love, to work, to raise a family, etc. Although this is an admittedly extreme case with little likelihood, there are less extreme cases that may produce the same effect. Licensing people to become parents prevents this. In the case of the parent who does not have the means of raising the child, the reason is obvious. The parent may be unable to provide for the child. The child could die of malnutrition, lack of resources. The parents unfortunate circumstances might place an additional strain on the child. It may grow up with a guilt complex, thinking him/herself the cause of the parents misfortune. The child may start to resent their more fortunate classmates, even to the point of retreating from society. Just because they feel they have the right to raise the child in the environment they see fit, their circumstances would invariably harm the child. In this case, the childs environment while staying with that parent may have serious negative consequences for that childs future, and so this case does not undermine the licensing proposal.. In the case of the parent who may physically harm the child, the child is under a present and immediate danger at all times with the parent. Right now, parents who abuse or neglect their children have them taken away. Also, the abuse may lead to the children becoming more aggressive outside the home, more withdrawn, and may also change the way they interact in society. By the parent believing they have the right to physically abuse their child because it is their right as a parent to choose the way they raise their child, they are still causing harm to their child. Therefore, this case cannot undermine the licensing proposal. In these cases, different parental archetypes have been considered in relation to whether or not parents should be licensed. Although parents believe they have the right to raise their children as they see fit, the danger is too great that the children come to harm. The licensing is

made to prevent this harm, and so the alleged right to raise their children as they see fit does not adequately counter the proposal. In the end, licensing parents is still a very plausible, valid idea.