Reading about parents who entomb their babies in cement or who abandon their children as a matter of course makes me think that Peg Tittle is on to something. 
 

The Ontario, Canada writer and former philosophy professor is the editor of a collection of essays called Should Parents Be Licensed? Debating the Issues. 
 

The name is provocative enough.  But listen to the titles of some of the pieces included in the book: “Can Having Children Be Immoral?”  “Is There a Natural Right to Have Children?”  “The Mythology of Family Planners.” 
 

Granted, these are some of the more incendiary ideas included in the book, published last summer by Prometheus Books. 
 

When you hear about the abominable things parents are capable of doing to their children, though, drastic measures seem less objectionable. 
 

An Ontario County Court judge this week wrapped up the criminal case against the father who helped hide his wife’s murder of their newborn by concealing the body in a tub of concrete.  Brian DeBeer was sentences to 1/3 to 7 years in prison for hindering prosecution. 
 

His wife is already serving 30 years to life for killing the newborn and another infant, whom she said she disposed of without her husband’s knowledge. 
 

But the story may not end there.  The father’s attorney has said the daddy wants custody of the couple’s three other children, including one born while the mother was in prison. 
 

In another case of parenting gone wrong, the troubled mother whom a Monroe county judge famously ordered not to reproduce was in court again this week. 
 

Sort of, anyway.  Stephanie Pendleton didn’t appear for a hearing on Monday where Family Court Judge Marilyn O’Connor terminated her parental rights to a toddler son.  Three other children, all born with cocaine in their systems, are with relatives. 
 

These are the kinds of egregious child abuse cases that advocates say could be avoided through parental licensing, a concept from the early 1970s that periodically makes its way back. 
 

The debate on how to regulate human cloning is what got Tittle thinking that maybe rules should be applied to all parents. 
 

She saw an inconsistency in making regulations for cloning humans and, say, putting potential adoptive parents through a rigorous screening process while giving biological parents a pass. 
 

“Why should we set the bar higher if we’re going to create life this way rather than another way?” she tells me by phone. 
 

Tittle supports a mild form of licensing; maybe potential parents would have to prove maturity (i.e., age) and knowledge (i.e., a parenting course). 
 

There’s not much support for these or other ideas in the book supporting parental licensing. 
 

Denise-Marie Santiago, Rochester Democrat &Chronicle 
 
 

Procreation is a natural part of being human; indeed, it’s a natural part of life in general. It may not be one of those things that “simply happens,” but it does happen without always a great deal of forethought and preparation. There are some who argue, though, that it should – not simply preparation in the sense of planning on the part of the couple, but also on the part of the state. There are some who argue that parents should be licensed. 
 

Summary 
 

Title: Should Parents Be Licensed? Debating the Issues 
Author: Peg Tittle 
Publisher: Prometheus Books 
ISBN: 1591020948

Pro: 
•  A lot of interesting essays you won’t easily find elsewhere

Con: 
•  Very controversial and touchy subject

Description: 
•  Collection of articles on whether the state should control procreation 
•  Many provide arguments for why parenthood shouldn’t be a right 
•  Offers interesting perspectives that should be considered.   
 

Book Review 
 

Because parenthood is regarded as one of the most natural things in the world, most people will react very negatively to any suggestion that a license should be required before being allowed to procreate. That would be like forcing people to have a license in order to breathe or walk – being a parent is a right rather than a privilege such as driving. But should it be?  
 

We must keep in mind that there is a lot at stake for the children themselves. When a two people become parents, there is suddenly at least one more individual whose interests must be taken into consideration: the child. Shouldn’t children only be born into homes where they are wanted? Shouldn’t children only be born into homes where the parents know what they are doing, know how to raise kids, and can provide the children with a psychologically and emotionally healthy atmosphere? Of course – no one can deny that this would be ideal. The question is, should the state do anything to legally enforce it?

This is the central theme in Peg Tittle’s book Should Parents Be Licensed? Debating the Issues. This is not a subject that is debated very much, which would explain why this is one of the only books available right now that addresses it. It’s a very emotional issue because, as I noted above, so many people treat procreation as a right that shouldn’t be closely regulated by the government. Even a suggestion that there be licensing and regulation can be met with aggressive attacks. 
 

Although such a reaction may be understandable, there are fair reasons for at least raising the matter. As I also noted above, we can’t ignore the fact that once people become parents, there are automatically other interests involved. The government doesn’t have any outside rights to protect that would justify regulating people’s sexual activity, but there are outside rights to protect that could affect whether people go so far as to have children.  
 

We have to face the fact that there are people out there who are parents and who probably shouldn’t be. They may lack the intellectual, the emotional, or the psychological resources to raise children properly. Being a parent isn’t easy – it’s not for everyone, even though there are social pressures in society for everyone to have kids. Thus, the question isn’t so much whether some people should refrain from having kids or even should be encouraged to refrain from having kids. Instead, the question is whether the state should step in enforce such an ideal.  
 

The first hurdle to a licensing scheme would be coming up with a means that would prevent people from having unapproved children, a hurdle which may not be as tough as it first appears. In one article, Roger McIntire describes a fictional scenario in which a drug can permanently prevent conception until an antidote is created. Such a product would be incredibly popular, but it would raise the question of control. The state could, for example, restrict access to the antidote. It wouldn’t take many steps to force everyone to take the contraceptive and keep the antidote out of the hands of any but those who passed a test. 
 

Here, though, we come up against the larger hurdles that would inhibit the creation of a licensing system: what sorts of skills get tested, what sorts of standards will be enforced, and what sorts of tests will exist? This sounds at first like insurmountable hurdles until you remember that they already exist and are already enforced. People already accept the role of the state in deciding who does and does not deserve to be a parent when it comes to custody cases, foster care, and adoption. Roger McIntyre writes:  
 

“Can you imagine the public outcry that would occur if adoption agencies offered their children on a first-come-first-served basis, with no screening process for applicants? Imagine some drunk stumbling up and saying, “I’ll take that cute little blond-haired girl over there.”” 
 

We could also describe a similar scenario in the context of cloning human beings. Someday this will be possible, but do you really think that it will happen without state regulation? On the contrary, there will be all kinds of regulations. Those doing the cloning will have to ensure that they don’t create human beings who are sick or will be suffering from chronic pain. Cloners will have to provide good reasons for what they are doing — they won’t be allowed to create their own armies, for example, or clone for the sake of personal gratification.  
 

In other words, we don’t permit irresponsible adoption and we wouldn’t permit the irresponsible creation of human life via cloning. Nevertheless, we do permit irresponsible parenthood and creation of life through natural means. Isn’t there a bit of a contradiction there? If people don’t have a right to adopt and don’t have a right to create life via cloning, why do we think that they have a right to create life via sexual reproduction? What is it about the creation of life that would qualify as a “right” in the first place? Surely it can’t be a “right” merely because it is a natural activity. 
 

Even if it is a right, though, no right is absolute. Is there a right to have children who would suffer from serious, painful, and debilitating diseases? Is there a right to have children that is completely decoupled from your responsibility to properly and adequately raise it? These are all very good and interesting questions — questions that are addressed, even if not completely answered, by authors represented in the book.  
 

The subject of licensing parents is more likely to attract outrage and derision than serious reflection or debate. This is understandable, but it’s also unfortunate. People have been procreating for millennia without government interference, so why should we start now? The age of a practice is not, however, an argument on behalf of its validity. Perhaps we can do better than our ancestors. Perhaps the arguments in favor of some licensing scheme are better than those against — but you’ll have to seriously listen to and reflect upon them first before you can reach that conclusion.  
 

Austin Cline, atheism.about.com 
 
 

You need a licence to drive a car, own a gun or fish for trout. You don't need a licence to raise a child.  
 

But maybe you should.  
 

At least that's the opinion of Peg Tittle, a writer/philosopher who has edited a new book of essays called Should Parents be Licensed?  
 

"I don't think the creation of life should be chaotic, unplanned, accidental or passionate," says Tittle.  
 

"Sex can be all that – but not creating a life."  
 

A local parenting expert, however, is aghast at the idea.  
 

"You can't mess with this," says Karen Goldthorp, who helps parents hone child-raising skills with her Stratford-based company, Keys in Developing Solutions (KIDS). "This is the way it's supposed to be."  
 

Tittle's new book (published by Prometheus Books) contains about two dozen essays by various experts, including psychologists, lawyers and sociologists.  
 

And though their topics range from genetic engineering to prenatal abuse, Tittle says they all agree on one thing: That though we devote much time and talk to the idea of ending a life (including abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia), we are far too laissez-faire about starting it.  
 

"There should be some notion of responsibility, intentionality and deliberateness," she says.  
 

Anyone who attended this week's domestic violence conference at the London Convention Centre (or anyone who follows the news) would know one painful fact: There are a lot of broken people out there.  
 

And a lot of that damage – damage that is, in many cases, largely irreversible – occurs during the first few years of a child's life. 
 

Indeed, a new study at the University of Western Ontario pegs the financial costs of child abuse in Canada at more than $15 billion, including more than $1.1 billion in social services, $600 million in judicial costs, $222 million in health costs and almost $24 million in special education services.  
 

To be honest, it takes nothing more than a trip to the local mall to confirm there are a lot of lousy parents. (Not you, of course. And definitely not me.)  
 

So what do we do?  
 

Tittle suggests potential parents should meet some minimal requirements: They must be 18 or older, they must not be addicted to drugs or hooked on booze and they must complete a course in child development.  
 

Tittle also agrees with one of the essayists in her book, who suggests that adolescents should be required to submit to a contraceptive vaccine (a concept Tittle says is more dependable than current contraceptives and which, she suggests, would be technically feasible if only enough money were poured into research).  
 

"That changes the default mode – you have to do something intentional to have kids," she says. "At the very least, you have to go to the drugstore to get the antidote."  
 

But Tittle bristles at the suggestion some alcoholics and heroin addicts have straightened out when faced with the prospect of parenthood.  
 

"You don't create a little human being to be your personal rehab program," she says, adding she's leery of most of the motives people profess for having kids. "This idea of using someone else for your joy, or for proof of your maturity, or for your satisfaction or fulfilment – there's something morally suspect about that. That's using a human being."

Tittle says she isn't sure how society would treat unlicensed parents. "That's an implementation problem. We could be draconian and say any unlicensed kids are taken away from their parents, but that's the extreme."  
 

She says she's wary that licensing parents could lead to licensing only certain kinds of parents – such as only those who are white, rich, Christian, etc. And she insists most parents would meet – and indeed welcome – such requirements.  
 

"We don't have to license only the best parents," says Tittle, who is childless by choice. "We just have to not license the worst." 
 

But in Stratford, child-rearing expert Goldthorp argues parenting is a lot like life – chaotic, imperfect and filled with flaws.  
 

"I think there are no mistakes – I think that's how we learn," says Goldthorp. "Don't you believe we all came here with our own gift to offer? You have to be allowed to stumble and fall."  
 

Ian Gillespie, London Free Press