It’s a situation we’ve all been in. Maybe you’re in the grocery store. Maybe you’re at a school function. Maybe you’re on a plane. Maybe you’re at a sporting event. It doesn’t matter where you are, really. The situation is the same: someone’s children are acting obnoxious, and the parent is doing nothing to stop it- and perhaps they are even encouraging it. It can be frustrating to anyone to be put in such a situation. It can even bring to mind the often-suggested idea of needing a “parenting license” prior to having children. However, there are a number of reasons that such a “solution” would be more problematic than the few misbehaved kids we run into on a regular basis already seem to be.
One major reason why it’s not worth the trouble is the question of enforcement. Obviously, it is human nature to have sex, as the teenage birthrate already proves. Birth control, even when used 100% effectively, is not 100% effective, and certainly cannot be enforced to prevent pregnancy (anyone even suggesting such an idea would immediately face comparison to regimes such as the Nazis, which practiced racial purification ideals and forced euthanasia of the handicapped and mentally ill in the T4 program). Forced sterilization, which also is not 100% effective, certainly cannot be imposed on the general public. Forced abortions would face a political and social backlash like none most nations have ever seen. It becomes obvious, then, that preventing pregnancy, either before or after the person is pregnant, will not likely be acceptable or in any way palatable to the general public. And if you can’t prevent it but still expect people to get a license before becoming pregnant- then what?
In this bizarre scenario, where a reaction to the above-named means of preventing childbirth would certainly be more than anyone would reasonably gamble with politically, there would then have to be a means of punishing the would-be “lawbreakers/parents” without making too much of an impact on the resources of the state- or affecting the well-being of the child. So what then? I suppose one option would be state-imposed confiscation of the children at birth. How on earth could this be executed feasibly? Foster and adoptive parents are already hard enough to come by. This approach would certainly require state-funded orphanages to be created for the children to be raised in. It is hard to argue, even with the most mediocre parenting possible that still does not cross the line into negligence or child abuse (for which we already have legal procedures to enable removing the child from the home), that having hundreds of thousands, if not more, children being raised in orphanage conditions, where they receive little personal attention compared to within most family units, could be more beneficial than that child being raised in even the most mediocre of situations with their own family. According to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, children raised in orphanages rather than foster care alone have an average IQ of 20 points lower. And they would certainly be deprived of the basic template of family life that is acquired in childhood and guides most children in building their adult life. In a situation where a license were required and removal from the home were the punishment, we would face massive long-term social problems as this massive percentage of the population grows up in unnatural conditions and without the personal attention needed to become functioning members of society. We would likely also see major political backlash from the parents (and particularly mothers, who in general have an exceptionally strong biological connection to their children by virtue of having had them inside their bodies for nine months before birth), who would likely lobby in droves for the right to be a part of their children’s’ lives and, if possible, to be able to raise them themselves. This is biologically programmed into us, and is impossible to erase entirely.
So, in all likeliness, removal is obviously a punishment that cannot be implemented on a large scale. What alternatives remain for punishment for not getting a “pregnancy license”? One that would probably face the most support would be to fine parents who did not get permission beforehand. But this becomes very thorny as well. How much, for example, is a just fine for breaking this law? Who decides whether or not the fine is just? And rest assured, even once these two points are decided, it gets no less complicated. Children, as is commonly known, are very expensive to raise, and infants especially. Any money fined can easily be looked at as money taken directly from the child itself, leading to less well-being for the child in its especially formative stages, also potentially causing difficulties for society long-term. Most young parents, even those in the best of financial circumstances for their age and area, still find themselves struggling with the expenses of having a child in addition. These expenses include the medical bills for prenatal care and pregnancy, often staggering (according to WebMD, in 2008, an uncomplicated vaginal birth cost around $9,600; while covered by insurance for some, in the United States, many individual insurance policies still do not cover maternity care), as well as the loss of income due to maternity/paternity leave, childcare, or a reduction in how much one partner works due to the need to provide affordable childcare. Fining the people in society who literally need the money the most in order to properly raise the next generation in a manner in which they will be best able to contribute to society in their adult lives would be a complete and utter setback for all of society.
We know that some parents are better at parenting than others. We know that it can be frustrating to be in the store and have a parent not reprimand their kid for something. But that doesn’t mean they should have their rights to parenting taken away entirely. For one thing, a lot of childless people have no idea the amount of energy that goes into parenting. It is more than a full-time job. You are responsible for the life of another human being, 24/7. Some days, you might have to stop them from choking, getting hit by a car, and then take them to Wal-Mart, while you are already exhausted, and even if you’re the best parent ever, you might not notice them pestering a stranger. It happens to even the best of parents. In my opinion, you also cannot make blanket judgments about how good a parent a person will be before they have a child. Parenting changes you, and indeed, there are many styles of parenting. President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama were both raised by single mothers, ones who likely would have been subject to these potential punishments were they real at the time. Yet they both raised children who became President of the United States of America. We know not everyone is a good parent. That’s why we have laws to remove children from homes in certain situations on the books. But we can’t morally prevent all pregnancy with the tools we have, and we can’t morally harm the children by removing them just because their parents became pregnant without a license or by fining the parents and causing the child, by extension, hardship. Indeed, at the end of the day, it is quite simple: we cannot force people to get a license prior to becoming pregnant. There is no way to enforce it, and even if there were, it would not be right.
Works Cited:
Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. “Facts and Statistics.” Retrieved from
http://www.ccainstitute.org/why-we-do-it-/facts-and-statistics.html on April 26, 2013.
WebMD. “What it Costs to Have a Baby.” Retrieved from
http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/cost-of-having-a-baby?page=2 on April 26, 2013.
