Randall Fasnacht's proposal in your December 1989 issue to end the abortion debate and protect the rights of children by licensing prospective parents was a chilling example of the lengths to which the so-called "pro-life" movement is willing to go to impose its moral views on others. His suggestion that "pregnancy-suppressing substances...could be added to the food and water supplies, essentially rendering everyone (read "women") infertile, a condition which would only be reversed with an antidote upon completion of the licensing procedure," is so ludicrous as to almost be amusing, except that one gets the feeling that the author sincerely believes that Big Brother has the right to chemically control the populace.
The problem Fasnacht tries to address with his misguided authoritarian solution is a real one - some children are born into poverty, to drug-addicted parents, and to parents who abuse them. This is a tragedy which calls out for bold and creative solutions. But by drawing up standards to which he would hold prospective parents, Fasnacht offers no real solution, he merely displays a good deal of naivete as well as contempt for women (especially poor women) and minorities. The standards that the author describes as "objective" actually rest on the arrogant assumption that married, white, middle class, educated people don't abuse their children, and that everyone else (read "lower income people, African-Americans, Hispanics, single women") does. This assumption is as dangerous as it is patently absurd.
By suggesting that nameless bureaucrats would somehow have the wisdom to decide who should have the "privilege" of reproducing, Fasnacht's proposal leads to frightening questions about what else might happen once the government assumed control over reproduction. It is a small step from decreeing that certain people are not "fit" to reproduce, to decreeing that certain groups with "desirable" characteristics should be forced to reproduce for the good of the gene pool. The last person who tried to implement such a program was Aldof Hitler, a dubious role model at best.
The real issue in the debate about the welfare of children is the lack of humane values in our society. We live in a society whose wealth and other resources are unevenly distributed. If our society valued all of its children more than it valued the profit motive, we would spend the intellectual, creative and financial resources necessary to eliminate poverty, support education, and promote an ethic that values children among ALL social classes and ethnic groups (including those married, white, middle class, educated parents who, contrary to Fasnacht's belief, do abuse their children). This would go a long way toward protecting the rights and opportunities of children.
 (January 1993).iso/Files/Hyper/H-Hx/HardCopy.cpt/HARDCOPY FOR THE COMMON GOOD/card_11791_render.png){kind=link}
 (January 1993).iso/Files/Hyper/H-Hx/HardCopy.cpt/HARDCOPY FOR THE COMMON GOOD/card_12653_render.png){kind=link}