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.

Published

2 years ago

October 21, 2021

Jeff Davidson

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.

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.

Up Next

Flourishing in an Era of Over-Communication

Don't Miss

In-N-Out Burger Serves Customers, not San Francisco

News

Defund the US-Hating United Nations

Published

4 hours ago

December 4, 2023

Ed Brodow

When I was a boy, we worshipped the United Nations. I remember taking the subway with my fourth-grade class from Brooklyn into Manhattan, where we observed the countries of the world as they carried out the lofty founding purpose of the UN: to maintain peace and foster cooperation between nations. My classmates and I admired the lucky bureaucrats who worked in the beautiful glass building on the East River.

Segue to 2023: the UN has betrayed its original goals. In reaction, the US should defund the UN and kick them out of town. Let them set up shop in Teheran and see how they like it. There are many reasons in support of what I am suggesting, but for now let’s stick to the two biggies: (1) The UN has become a pawn of Islamic anti-Western hatred; and (2) Self-serving UN bureaucrats are committed to a totalitarian globalist agenda that is diametrically opposed to US interests. Oh, I forgot a third reason: We can use the money.

Muslim states account for 18 of the 47 seats on the UN Human Rights Council. This Muslim bloc has been the driving force, says cnsnews.com, behind two key items on the Council’s agenda: the campaign for Islamic anti-blasphemy laws and condemnations of Israel. Now it seems they have the support of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Pamela Geller, author of Stop the Islamization of America, said Guterres “is a tool of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been running a years-long campaign against freedom of speech at the UN.”

Guterres has cited “Islamophobia” as the reason for increasing terrorism around the world. “One of the things that fuel terrorism,” said Guterres, “is the expression in some parts of the world of Islamophobic feelings and Islamophobic policies and Islamophobic hate speeches.” WorldNetDaily argued that, “Guterres just gave a free pass to Islamic extremists to commit acts of terror throughout the world.” It’s a lot like blaming the victim, says Phillip Haney, author of See Something Say Nothing. “He’s giving them an out. If they’re not required to take any responsibility for their terrorism and can simply blame the Islamophobic Western world,” says Haney, “it’s only going to get worse.”

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism expert, said Islamophobia is the term Muslim leaders use to identify people who are guilty of the Islamic blasphemy laws. “This gives us the cherry on top of the argument for shutting down the United Nations and sending them back to their respective countries,” Guandolo said. “It is an anti-American organization which is littered with spies and haters of liberty and justice.”

“Guterres is doing the bidding of Islamic jihadists and is advancing Islamic conquest by silencing truthful speech about Islam,” former Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann told WND. “No other religion enjoys such protection from criticism,” Bachmann said. “Ironically, no other religion in current times has advanced more violence, carnage and bloodshed than Islam and yet Islam’s gatekeepers demand their religion not be criticized. We need to recognize this is nothing more than a well-designed strategy to achieve Islamic conquest and the UN Secretary General is now the jihadist’s advocate.”

The other reason to dump the UN is the globalist agenda adopted by the left-wing bureaucrats on the banks of the East River. “The tin pot dictators at the UN are only interested in redistribution of wealth, population control, the buildup of megacities, and global governance under the UN aegis,” says canadafreepress.com. UN globalists are pushing for open borders, penalties to stop global warming, and the destruction of capitalism.

The hysteria about global warming, said Senator James Inhofe, has been fueled by the UN’s desire for global control. Global climate change policies, said Inhofe, would give the UN its own funding source and make it unaccountable to member nations. “The climate scare is not driven by climate scientists,” agreed British political commentator Christopher Monckton. “It’s not driven by any adverse circumstances in the world’s weather. It is driven by a totalitarian political ideology.” This ideology, said Monckton, is fostered by the unelected bureaucrats at the UN and EU. Ottmar Edenhofer, German economist and UN official, admitted that global warming is a fiction created to camouflage the real intent of the UN—to redistribute the world’s resources under the control of a totalitarian world government.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” argues Edenhofer. “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change and the driving force behind the 2015 Paris Agreement, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. As reported in Investor’s Business Daily, Figueres said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” In case you don’t understand what that means, UN bureaucrats—under the guise of responding to climate change—want to take what you have and give it to people in the less developed parts of the world.

Fox News reports that the US contributes approximately $8 billion per year to the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. Look at what we are getting in return—not a very good deal. Imagine how we could put that money to better use. Build a wall? End poverty? Rebuild the military? Instead of doing what its founders intended, the UN has turned into an attack dog against the US and its ally, Israel. Let’s get rid of it.

Ed Brodow (www.edbrodowpolitics.com) is a conservative political commentator and author of ten books including the No. 1 Amazon best seller, THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport.

Military

Teaching Terrorists Everywhere that Taking Hostages Works

Published

2 days ago

December 2, 2023

Terry L. Paulson, Ph.D., CSP, CPAE

Are you a conservative business person? Then check out the Red Referral Network and partner with Dinesh D’Souza by clicking the banner below:

There was a time that they didn’t negotiate with kidnappers or terrorists. But obviously, things have changed, and, as one might expect, hostage taking has increased. Why? Because it works. It results in the release of convicted terrorists in custody and gets hours of media coverage for their cause.

Terrorists understand the West. Founded on Judeo-Christian values, the West puts a premium on each human life. Our respect for the individual is one of our strengths, but it clearly can cost us in facing terrorists. One cannot fault the families of anyone held hostage for fighting for their release and pleading and praying for their safe return. In the same situation, would not most of us do the same? Terrorists know that.

With the slow and steady drip of more hostages being released every day, the ceasefire continues to be extended and Israel remains constrained from their goal of eliminating Hamas from Gaza. With each passing day Israel is forced to face more restrictions in an effort to protect the innocent civilians. They are forced to deal with Hamas, give them supplies, and release dangerous captives back into Gaza.

As Hamas releases captives and the media covers the hostages’ heartwarming return home, Hamas is given the opportunity to present themselves as the “good guys,” releasing women and children to the appreciative eyes of the world. They inflate the numbers of Palestinian women and children already killed in Israel’s response. Hamas is finding that the repeated release will begin to soften the world’s view of their October 7th savagery,

While Israel is being forced to wait and watch the daily trickle of hostages being returned, they know full well that the supplies they’re bringing to Hamas will make their job to eliminate them more difficult. Weapons are being moved, fortifications are strengthened, forces are repositioned, and traps are being put in place to kill Israeli soldiers. Every day they delay their assault, their job is becoming more difficult.

The IDF and Israeli leaders are saying the right things. Getting the hostages returned is a welcome result. They know that having to release them by force would have put far more hostages and soldiers in danger. No doubt, many of the Israeli hostages now free might very well have died in the efforts to free them by force. Good has come, but at what cost to their ultimate aim?

What is rewarded gets replicated. In 2011, the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange between Israel and Hamas, also known in Arabic as Wafa al-Ahrar, “Faithful to the Free,” resulted in the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 Hamas prisoners held by Israel. It took the release of a thousand terrorists to get one captured soldier. That was a deal Hamas loved. As Israel negotiates now, how many convicted terrorists will be returned to Gaza to release the remaining hostages held captive? Once again, taking hostages is paying off in the number of Hamas terrorists freed.

As the ceasefire is extended and only a few hostages are released per day, the exchange could easily take weeks. Hamas is counting on the international press and wavering Western allies to keep up the pressure on Israel. What they want is a permanent ceasefire, and if Israel caves in and agrees to this, the entire war will have been for nothing. Hamas will remain in power in Gaza, and Israel will be left with a military failure and the assurance that more attacks will continue.

Israel has promised to resume their goal of eliminating Hamas from Gaza once the hostage negotiations have been completed. But the anti-Israel media will be ready to savage Israel for even considering to resume the assault.

But resume they must! Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of a founding member of Hamas who went undercover as a spy for Israel, provides a warning the West should take to heart: “The danger is if Israel fails in their war in Gaza, which is a brutal war … it will inspire … savages [who will] blackmail superpowers and bring democracies to their knees. If Israel fails in Gaza, all will be next.”

Thankfully, Israel is used to being hated. They know what it is to go it alone if necessary. Netanyahu has promised to resume the assault and to take out Hamas leaders living in presumed safety abroad. Many of the Hamas fighters released in the hostage exchange will no doubt join the fight against Israel. Hopefully, many of them will die in their futile defense.

Terrorism must not win the day. Israel would be wise to put a time limit on when all hostages must be released. Provide a safe page for innocents until that deadline is reached. Some remaining hostages may die, but what assurance does Israel have that some hostages are not already dead. Israel must finish the job or an emboldened Hamas will be free to repeat their savage attacks. Evil must be defeated. God willing, it will be.