Parenting licenses

Parenting licenses—that is, requiring permission to have children—is a concept I think is not only morally acceptable, but morally good. A lot of people have a very negative reaction to that statement, but I think it's a very reasonable idea that, unfortunately, is very nearly impossible to implement practically. Also, when I say "prevent people from having children", the method is unspecified—do not assume I am speaking of sterilization or forced abortions. With that said, this post is about the abstract concept in moral terms, unmuddled by practical concerns.

We already say, as a society, that people don't have a right to raise children. If parents aren't doing a good enough job, we as a society reserve the right to revoke that privilege, to take the children away and place them in the care of the state. I think it's a very small jump from saying that people don't have the right to raise children to not having a right to have children.

The issue is, at its core, the same as with foster care: children's rights. Children have a right to a childhood free from abuse and neglect. Parenting licenses are based on the concept that if a child has no chance of having a decent childhood, they should not be conceived in the first place. This concept is already present as one reason for abortion—if the mother does not think that the child will have a proper environment in which to develop, she can terminate her pregnancy to prevent that from happening. People can voluntarily give up their children to foster care, but in certain cases society can force it upon people to protect the child's rights—and in analogy to voluntary abortions, society should be able to (in an ideal world with ideal methods) prevent people from having children.

Now, on to the objections. A lot of times that I bring this up, people's first reaction is a very strong but very vague objection—they think it's wrong, but cannot provide me with a coherent thought as to why they think it's wrong. I imagine this has to do with very base biological instincts relating to procreation.
Most objections relate to practicalities—that it would be excessive government intervention, a tool for oppression, classist, etc. None of these are arguments against the morality of it, only against any actual implementation of it. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against the fundamental morality of parenting licenses, and welcome anybody who wishes to provide me with one.
I agree wholeheartedly that parenting licenses would be a bad idea. The first issue that comes before all others is how to determine who is fit to be a parent. Such a psychological evaluation would be incredibly complex and would surely give many false positives. Beyond that, the methods used to control fertility are another huge barrier—we would need near 100% reliability with a near 100% certainty of re-enabling fertility. IUDs come closest to this, but I would be opposed to a system where the prevention rests solely on females. Finally, the potential for abuse is enormous. Not only would it probably tend to be classist (the argument that there is a certain level of funding that a child deserves is a pretty easy one to make), but it could easily descend into eugenics. So obviously the system cannot be implemented, but that has no bearing on its morality.

The arrogance of creationism

A lot of people don't realize how arrogant creationism is. It's like this: literally tens of thousands of very smart people have dedicated their entire lives to the subject, and have collectively come to the same conclusion. A person who is almost entirely uneducated in the subject to claim that they know better is extremely insolent.

People think they're smart, that they know everything—or even that they can know everything. And because of that, they think that their opinion on some subject matter should have weight. But it doesn't. The fact is that biology is far too complex for an uneducated person to truly understand it. The body of knowledge is so vast that only people whose careers are in the field have the time and capability to absorb it all. To criticize its findings without knowing the field is preposterous.

This is part of a bigger lack of integration of science in society. Science is about the method. If you trust in the method, you should trust in the results. You don't get to pick and choose. But people think they know better than the scientists. I had a conversation with a guy about global warming. He was saying, "See, they aren't taking into account the cycle of this or that." I asked him, "So you think you're smarter than the thousands of scientists who have all come to this conclusion?" And he said, "No." "But," I responded, "if you know about this certain aspect that either none of the scientists have thought of, or none have been able to get convincing data on, then you must surely be smarter than all of them!" And that's really the problem.

Accepting science is in large part about accepting one's own limitations. The point of peer review is that one person alone is not enough to ensure quality. The most committed scientists, when someone derails their work by pointing out a flaw, will thank that person. Science is about the wisdom of collective study—that though one person can only work in a very limited scope, they can use information from others, trusting that the process made the information reliable. Science is about admitting that there are people who know more than you, to whom you could never catch up. Science is about admitting that people, but more specifically that you yourself are biased, and that the only path to truth is trusting the data.

Give me liberty or give me death

I wish some politician had the guts to stand up and say that preserving our liberties means that we may be more vulnerable to attack. It's political suicide, of course, but it has to be done. The fear mongering that is going on is absolutely unacceptable. And of course the irrational public buys into it. There is a great willingness to sacrifice liberties, especially the liberties of others. The detention center at Guantanamo Bay being used to deny people their civil rights by virtue of being off U.S. soil. Wire tapping. The Boston bomb scare, with its absolutely ridiculous idea that somehow misinterpretation is the fault of the creator. The quote by the attorney general that "[The device] had a very sinister appearance. It had a battery behind it, and wires." For heavens sake, don't let her inside a Radio Shack. But seriously, we cannot hold accountable people for things that are clearly not intended to instill fear or misinterpretation. We cannot let people who live in irrational fear prevail. We must accept that to truly be free, we must live our lives as though we will not be attacked. By that I mean of course the general public - clearly there needs to be anti-terrorism work done.

Mitt Romney is the antithesis of these thoughts. Not only is he for doubling Guantanamo, but he has said, "Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive." I can't put it any better than Jon Stewart did: "That will go over great in New Hampshire, where the state motto is Live Free Or...Do Everything You Can To Stay Alive." We cannot let him, or anyone else like him, gain power. Our liberties would be perhaps irrevocably damaged under a person like Romney.

Someone needs to step up. This is infringing on our freedom to live our lives. We must not live in fear. We must not shut down our cities over things that are not likely to be bombs (what terrorist would make bombs conspicuous?). We must safeguard our liberties against fear mongers.

Ironic note: the New Hampshire license plates, on which "Live Free Or Die" is inscribed, are made by prison inmates.

Also, a quiz on this topic.