

News
A License to Have Children
Bringing a child into the world is a serious matter. If you’re shocked by the title of this article, do not pre-judge: read it the whole way through.
If you’re shocked by the title of this article or have some preconceived notion about what it contains, do not pre-judge me or the article: read it the whole way through.
A growing number of individuals are beginning to think it’s time to require that people get a license before having children. If the idea sounds absurd or highly impractical to you, I can empathize, as I once felt the same way.
If there were but one or two sound reasons why a license for bringing a child into the world is a good idea, perhaps we could let the issue rest for another decade or so. Actually, there are dozens of compelling reasons, the top half-dozen outlined here, for our society to organize itself in a way it never has before and in a manner that was perhaps unthinkable a generation ago.
Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: The Subtleties of Religious Discrimination
Not Everyone Will
Before turning to the six big reasons for requiring a license to have children, let’s skip ahead to a time in which it is the law of the land.
As with licensing in other aspects of society, such as driving, not everyone who is supposed to get a license does so. Some people simply drive without one. Presumably, they proceed until they are caught for a traffic violation. Some people drive after their license has been suspended. Similarly, people will have children without the slightest regard for getting a license. As we’ll discuss, there are still compelling reasons for proceeding with the process.
Regardless of whether prospective child-rearing adults were to file for licenses, some people would always argue that requiring a license smacks of Big Brotherism.
“Haven’t people always conceived babies without a license?”
“Why do we need to impose this now?”
“Isn’t this one more bit of burdensome government regulation?”
“Isn’t this unconstitutional?”
“What agency will administer and oversee the process?”
“Will we be creating greater bureaucracy?”
“Why should the government get so involved in my private life?”
These points are worth considering; cause for alarm, however, is premature. There need not be one iota of Big Brotherism in the process. Licensing procedures don’t have to be designed so as to exclude anyone. Racism, favoritism, or any other “ism” need not gain any foothold here. No one plays God and decides who has children and who doesn’t. Rather, licensing, as argued here, would be available to anyone who applies. It could be as simple as registering to vote and the costs would be minimal if piggybacked on to an agency that already administers licenses.
Considering that many people will not seek to obtain the license, and that licensing itself will not be denied to anyone, why bother to have it at all? I’m glad you raised the question.
Six Reasons
1. Greater Lead Time
We are a nation where too many babies are born out of wedlock. Among African Americans, the figure is nearly 70%; among Native Americans, above 55%; among Hispanics, 52%; and among whites, 28%. In recent decades, we’ve witnessed dramatic increases in the numbers of teenage pregnancies, single mothers, abandoned or abused children, and even children murdered by their own parents.
Will licensing childbirth save even one child? Easily.
With the nine month average term of pregnancy, and nearly every mother able to determine if she’s pregnant at least seven months before term, the licensing process has a seven month lead time. Thus, each state or local jurisdiction’s social support and family services, as well as other community services, would have a greater capacity for population planning and dispensing of care, counseling, and other services. Pediatrics divisions of hospitals could plan more soundly to meet the needs of the surrounding community. So, too, could those who dispense critical services, such as birthing classes, educational videos, and counseling.
In short, licensing would increase the probability that more newborns have happy, successful early childhoods.
2. Restoring Sanctity to Birth
Licensing holds notable potential for restoring some semblance of sanctity to the birth process. Some parents seem to not realize that having a child is not something you do on a lark to get out of school, to cure boredom, or to better secure the affections of a partner. When the sanctity of childbirth across the broad swath of humanity is someday restored, the number of out-of-wedlock births will decline. Licensing is a means towards this end.
Ideally, a child comes into the world because a husband and wife are in love and wish to have a family. They give the matter careful consideration. They are cognizant of the need for years of endless sacrifices and financial outlays. Gary Becker, Ph.D., of the University of Chicago, was awarded the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that higher-income, educated married couples intentionally have fewer children than average so as to optimize the nurturing, education, and upbringing of each child.
The most successful and wisest parents among us actively choose to limit the size of their families.
Why should a society deign to offer indicators to anyone that bringing more children into the world, even one child, for whom you cannot adequately provide care, is socially acceptable or even tolerable? I wouldn’t even vaguely suggest that anyone be denied the opportunity to have children, even many children, independent of their educational, financial, or marital status. I am strongly against any notion of one person or group of people deciding who shall have children, how many, and who shall not. Rather, I argue for the maintenance of social standards which licensing would aid.
Having a license to bring a child into the world might help to sanctify both human birth experience and the ensuing human life experience. Currently, both pro-choice and pro-life advocacy groups need to re-examine and perhaps re-formulate their views regarding the sanctity of human life. While it can be argued at length that abortion is sometimes necessary, and that bringing an unwanted child into the world is itself morally reprehensible, abortion has never been an ideal answer to family planning.
While pro-life advocates appear to acknowledge the sanctity of birth, they have indicated less concern about the life a child brought into this world experiences. They need to focus additional concern on the next year to 80 years after a child is brought into the world.
3. More Accurate Census Count
Seemingly not as lofty as the issues discussed thus far, requiring people to have a license to bear children will be of enormous aid to the U. S. Bureau of the Census, all government agencies, and all institutions concerned with population and planning. This is no small benefit. Congress would be better able to allocate funds with population estimates that are closer to reality than are currently derived. Our institutions would be better able to meet the needs of citizens.
At all levels of government, better planning could be undertaken in the areas of education, health care, transportation, and housing.
Demographers, sociologists, and economists would have more robust primary data for the population projections and studies they undertake. In turn, leaders, administrators, boards of education, professors, students, and anyone else to whom population data is critical would be better informed and better served. (Note: not to say that licensees’ names would be available to commercial vendors. We all receive too many unsolicited offers now as it is.)
With vastly improved Census data, the long-term result would be improved prospects for childbirth and child-rearing among the masses, a desirable result for all aspects of society.
4. Better Child Support
Since the mid-1970s, an increasing number of children have been raised by a single parent – in most cases, the mother. Often, even when the mother and father are married when the child is conceived, the parents could be separated, temporarily or permanently, by the time the child arrives. When prospective parents understand that they’re required to get a license, there is an increased likelihood that, in the event of the demise of the relationship, the infant will still be afforded adequate resources during its childhood. Licensing would tend to decrease the incidence of cut-and-run fathers.
Some fathers who plan to be on hand when the child is born find that seven or eight months later, they don’t feel the same way. Having been part of a licensing procedure improves the odds, even if only slightly, that fathers will be on hand at the child’s birth and thereafter. If licensing resulted in a 1% decrease in the number of cut-and-run fathers, it would well be worth it.
5. With Greater Forethought
Lawyers must pass the state bar before practicing law. Some people get their driver’s licenses long before buying a car, or even driving regularly. Some potential parents – and it’s hoped that this is a large percentage – might seek to apply for a license before they attempt to conceive a child.
Having to get a license to get married is for the social good. Some people who are better off not married discover this after getting a marriage license but before heading down the aisle.
Any increase in the likelihood that prospective parents will give an added measure of forethought – or any forethought – to conceiving a child is for the social good.
In most states, when marriages are in trouble the partners can’t divorce at once; they have to endure a proscribed period of separation. In North Carolina, for example, 12 months of separate residency are required before the parents may file for divorce.
Similarly, a socially pervasive notion and legal requirement to get a license to bring a child into the world will, for some parents, serves as an incubation period. It would enable some parents to better determine whether having a baby is, in fact, what they wish to do at this time. Again, if even a tiny fraction of those who might have otherwise had a child end up not doing so, all parties benefit:
* our society that certainly doesn’t need another unwanted child,
* the parents who perhaps were not prepared to have child now, and
* yes, even the child who would have been.
If you doubt the last point, can you think of one person, if given the choice before birth, who would prefer to come into the world under any other circumstances other than being totally wanted, sufficiently loved, and adequately cared for?
6. Part of our Social Evolution
The tobacco growers in North Carolina are still scratching their heads and wondering why so many people are against what they grow. After all, their forefathers grew tobacco, and it’s always brought in healthy revenues for the state. Why upset the apple cart?
What was good for people 100 years or a generation ago isn’t what’s necessarily good for them today, or what’s good for society in general. If we were to keep things as they were, some people would be slaves. Some people wouldn’t have the vote. Fortunately, we overcame decades- and centuries-old dispositions and realized that we had to move forward. As our society becomes smoke-free, we all have the opportunity to witness social progress on a grand scale that some thought could not happen.
So, too, we each could witness social progress on a grand scale by requiring a license to have children.
Precious Lives
Each child who comes into this world is precious. Each one deserves the opportunity for an abundant life. It is not a civil liberty to have children any more than it’s a civil liberty to buy an automobile, practice medicine, or open a restaurant. Having a license to drive indicates to everyone that driving a motor vehicle is a serious affair. There are rules of the road to which we must all adhere.
Requiring a license of medical practitioners tells both physicians and their patients that the practice of medicine is a vital and serious profession, one not to be left in the hands of those who are untrained and unskilled. Even requiring restauranteurs to have a license before serving people signals that not merely anyone can serve anything to anybody. Standards exist when it comes to food preparation, sanitation, and cleanliness. All of these examples are regulated because of the connection with others – patients, diners, other cars. Having a child who will become a citizen, go to school, an interact with other for decades is the ultimate connection to others.
Raising children is perhaps the most important undertaking on earth. When having a license to have children is the law of the land, all parents – everyone – will receive a continual message that bringing a child into the world is an important and serious matter, a message which is not fully grasped by enough adults in our society.
– – – – –
We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
News
Allen v. Farrow and the American Quest For Truth
Through his own words, Woody Allen reveals himself.
In an era where truth is a rare commodity, and nothing seems to be definitive, it’s illuminating to watch a four-hour, four-part HBO series: Allen v. Farrow. In methodical fashion, the long-running legal wrangling between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow over his alleged molestation of seven-year-old Dylan Farrow is explored.
The telecast, first aired two year ago, is absorbing for anyone who’s seen more than one Woody Allen movie, knows anything about the controversy, or has any interest in coming to resolution.
A Pedofile Revealed
Much of the broadcast features Dylan, now 37, married with a child of her own. As she reflects back on her experience at age 7, she is coherent and credible. Mia Farrow, who starred in 13 Allen films, comes off as more balanced than the press has allowed us to see in nearly three decades.
Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: The Subtleties of Religious Discrimination
Through his own words and deeds, Woody Allen, birth name Allen Konigsberg, reveals himself: He was obsessed with the young Dylan. He spent much time alone with her. He couldn’t keep his hands off of her.
He claims that he never ‘took her up to the attic,’ there was ‘no train set’ there, and that everyone who has made such observations is wrong. Yet, we learn about the train set in the attic, and that other Allen contentions are wrong.
The Attempt to Normalize His Obsessions
Why was Allen shielded for so long, by so many media outlets? He made so many movies in and about New York that he became a favorite son and easily one of New York’s most popular celebrities. He brought jobs and economic activity and, in virtually every movie, he showed the upside of New York. Few people wanted to believe he was guilty.
All of Allen’s 60+ films, original scripts, notes, and everything related to the making of his movies is archived at Princeton University, as other producers and directors have their film works archived at other universities.
During the telecast, the curator at Princeton makes a compelling observation: Most of Allen’s films focus on an older man with a younger woman, and Allen has been grooming us for 50+ years to accept his worldview. Following his Oscar winning film in 1978, Annie Hall, Allen’s next film was Manhattan, which many people regard as among his best.
Manhattan depicts the 45 year-old Allen dating a 17 year-old portrayed by Mariel Hemingway. This film, like so many of his others, is Allen’s attempt to normalize his preoccupation with vastly younger women. He married Soon-yi, the adopted daughter of his then-girlfriend, Mia Farrow, when he was 56 and she was 21. He met Soon-yi when he was 53 and she was 18.
In Woody Allen films such as Crimes and Misdemeanors, we see Martin Landau as an older ophthalmologist in a relationship with airline attendant and mistress Anjelica Huston, some 20+ years younger. In other Allen films, the same scenario plays out.
Quite Conclusive
After watching all four one-hour episodes in a single night, it became obvious that Allen, now age 87, is guilty. He has used his money, power, and influence to portray himself as something that he is not.
While dating Mia Farrow for 12 years, he steadfastly maintained that he didn’t want to provide care for her children. Yet, once the allegations related to Dylan surfaced, Allen takes Farrow to court to gain custody of three of her nine children: Moses Farrow, an older Asian boy that Mia adopted; Ronan Farrow, Allen’s only biological son; and Dylan Farrow, the young daughter at the center of the controversy.
I personally recall that during the custody trial, the presiding judge asked Allen if he could name any of Dylan’s classmates or neighborhood friends. He could not. He could not name any friends of Ronan Farrow or of Moses Farrow. Further, Allen had never taken any of their children to the dentist or for a haircut. Not one of the children had ever stayed overnight at Allen’s apartment.
Thoroughly Neurotic
What kind of man would take somebody to court to claim custody of three children about whom he knows nearly nothing? This is the kind of man that Woody Allen was and is: a faker, a charlatan, and so neurotic that the elements of his neurosis revealed in his movies don’t even begin to describe his daily afflictions.
As soon as Ronan Farrow, now a renowned investigative reporter, weighs in and defends Dylan’s assertions, Allen’s then 29-year ruse is vanquished.
Allen, like others in high, high office, is a pedophile with zero jail time. The crowning grace is that he’ll go to his grave knowing that he’s been exposed. He cannot spin the voluminous amount of information and testimony presented; a conclusive body of evidence that lays out the truth for all to see.
Comprehensive Coverage?
If only HBO and other major producers would feature comprehensive exposés of, say, Bill Clinton, James Comey, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Kamila Harris, Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch, Alejandro Mayorkas, John Kerry, James Clapper, Christopher Steele, Bruce Orr, Susan Rice, John Podesta, Charles Dolan, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, Alvin Bragg, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, and Susan Rice.
Or, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Nelly Ohr, Jussie Smollett, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Dick Durbin, Eric Swalwell, Jerry Nadler, Sheldon Whitehouse, Antony Blinken, Ilhan Omar, George Soros, Katie Hobbs, Liz Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Gates, Tom Steyer, Andrew Weissmann, Marc Elias, Andrew Cuomo, David Axelrod, Barack Obama, James Biden, or maybe, gosh, Hunter Biden.
You know, scoundrels like those.
– – – – –
Elections
Treachery Plagues Our Nation: Democrat Election Tampering is Rampant
Top Democrats believe that they alone must control who governs and that the American electorate cannot be trusted
On this Memorial Day it would be comforting to believe that the 1.3 million U.S. combat deaths sustained in all wars, and the 1.4 million wounded, some severely, occurred in the preservation of our representative republic, and in the safeguarding 0f free and fair elections. We must confront the reality, however, that our election process has been tainted by treachery.
The Grandest Illusion
During the 2016 campaign Hillary Clinton and her backers conspired to frame Donald Trump and portray him as a Russian colluder. Then, EVERY DAY, for the rest of his administration they relentlessly hounded him and unforgivably pursued everyone connected to him.
After her presidential election loss, Hillary Clinton went on dozens of major media interviews claiming that Donald Trump was an illegitimate president. She, above all, knew that he was not. She knew that every time Adam Schiff and others opened their mouths about Trump, they told lies.
Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: The Subtleties of Religious Discrimination
If only the ruse went that far. For at least six years now, top Democrats have enjoyed the perpetuation of this treasonous hoax and, sadly, nearly half of Democrats still believe that Trump colluded with Russia.
Obama, the Corrupt
Barack Obama was aware of the scheme from the outset, in 2016, while he was still in the White House. Joe Biden knew about it as did James Clapper. CIA Director John Brennan briefed Obama, Biden, FBI Director James Comey, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and other senior administration officials.
These top Democrat office holders went completely silent as the FBI initiated Crossfire Hurricane on the wild and unsubstantiated claim that Donald Trump was somehow a Russian agent.
The Mueller Commission knew about the scheme and proceeded anyway. After two months of searching they knew they had nothing on Trump, but shamefully continued for two years, daily badgering and intimidating his key staff people and his family. They interrogated Trump’s advisors and hit some of them with totally unrelated process crimes.
Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s chief degenerate bulldog, knew as well that he had nothing on Trump and yet he continued to harass the Trump White House, forcing hundreds of hours of testimony, wasting millions of tax dollars.
The Lapdog Press
The New York Times, under the sordid and twisted leadership of Dean Baquet, made Trump-Russia collusion a daily topic. Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC, and Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo on CNN, along with so many other talk show hosts, interviewed legions of ‘expert’ guests, who all repeated the claim that Trump was a Russian colluder.
Adam Schiff, on every single Sunday morning political talk show, repeatedly and emphatically said that he had evidence, had seen evidence, or knew of forthcoming evidence. Yet, he had nothing.
Let us be clear: These elected officials are traitors, and these media darlings are no better. And they are much wiser than you. They believe the American electorate cannot be trusted. They’ve decided that they alone must control who governs; the essence of treachery.
The Unending News Cycle
Today, it’s easy to overlook how vigorously the Left maintained this treachery. In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, we all glom on to what’s next and what’s next after that. Even Covid, vaccines, and mandated masks now seem like distant events.
Long after Robert Mueller appeared before Congress, and without offering a shred of evidence thoroughly embarrassed himself on national TV, the Democrats continued on. Hillary didn’t apologize. Obama never spoke up. Biden and his crime family kept enriching themselves by selling out America.
Brennan and Clapper haven’t come clean to this day. Adam Schiff is still playing the same tune and wants to run for the senate. Biden’s henchman are still badgering and persecuting Donald Trump with groundless lawsuits that no other president has had to endure for the same ‘offenses.’
These scoundrels, collectively, do not have an ounce of integrity within them. They could care less that their treachery has been exposed by the Durham Report, because the mainstream press, always providing cover for them, won’t touch the topic, and Attorney General Merrick Garland is their bag boy.
Neither Rachel Maddow nor anyone on MSNBC or CNN has recanted. Anderson Cooper is as self-righteous and bamboozled as ever. Surveys show that most rank and file Democrats remain in the dark.
Saul Alinsky’s Disciples
How can a free nation continue to thrive when half of its citizens are led by such abject liars? How can a representative republic remain intact when so many of its leaders are thoroughly corrupt and willing to stay corrupt?
A Chinese proverb says may you live in interesting times. They are infuriating times. Talk to liberals and they say, “There must have been something between Trump and Russia, otherwise why so much coverage?”
Like the Nazi axiom, repeat a lie often enough and people will start to believe it. Top Democrats are all Saul Alinsky advocates now, in league with the devil. None are worth saving. Many of them belong in prison for treason and most of them should be barred from public office.
Fraudulent Elections, 101
Make no mistake, if this array of top Democrats was willing to go as far as they did to stop Trump, and mask their treachery for seven years now, 2016 is not the only election in which they’ve conspired to interfere in our elections. Not by a long stretch.
– – – – –
-
News2 weeks ago
Pick One: Why the Right Must Bankrupt at Least One Liberal Corporation
-
News2 weeks ago
Six Keys to Praying for America
-
Elections2 weeks ago
Democrats Once Made Sense Occasionally
-
News1 week ago
The Pickle DeSantis Finds Himself In
-
News2 weeks ago
Mainstream Media: Intentionally and Diabolically Unfair and Unbalanced
-
Politics1 week ago
How Hating White People Became the New National Sport
-
Elections7 days ago
Treachery Plagues Our Nation: Democrat Election Tampering is Rampant
-
Military7 days ago
Lest We Forget