Michael Laws has written a piece for today's Sunday Star Times, titled Produce the licence or forget about reproducing. His grumble is that any person currently has a right to produce a child, but owning animals seems to far more restricted. For instance, a judge can order a person who has neglected animals to be banned from owning animals for a certain period of time, but no such ban can be applied to the creation of children. His solution is to test potential parents, I presume before the woman is pregnant. He writes:
What Laws forgets, is that civilised society does have such tests. These tests are called marriage. Make a commitment to a person of the opposite sex for life and vow to look after any children that might result, and then, and only then does society allow you to have children with it's full sanction. Some will still be miserable parents, but nevertheless this test seems to be the best one devised by man so far.
However, in our post-modern times, marriage is seen as old-fashioned and something one might do with one's current partner if one is so inclined. Hardly the commitment it used to be. Which Laws well knows.
The reality is that having a child should require a test. A demonstration that the child has the real opportunity for a future, and the real chance to be a positive contributor. Instead we work on the opposite tangent: have as many kids as you like. But if you want that dog? Prove yourself.
What Laws forgets, is that civilised society does have such tests. These tests are called marriage. Make a commitment to a person of the opposite sex for life and vow to look after any children that might result, and then, and only then does society allow you to have children with it's full sanction. Some will still be miserable parents, but nevertheless this test seems to be the best one devised by man so far.
However, in our post-modern times, marriage is seen as old-fashioned and something one might do with one's current partner if one is so inclined. Hardly the commitment it used to be. Which Laws well knows.
Exactly. The solution is right in front of him, but instead he depressingly resorts to Eugenics and forced abortions.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue though he didn't address is those parents that he decides are "entitled" to have children, only to revoke their own license a bit later on, and walk away from their responsibilities.
Perhaps he could be calling for mandatory sterilization of those people, just to reinforce the concept that parenthood carries extremely serious responsibilities. And obviously, rather than picking on just the underclass, he'd suddenly raise the ire of a much wider pool of people that might not like pointing out that casting stones can be a bit like throwing a boomerang.
It annoys the hell out of me that Laws postures as a "right winger". He just has not got the head for it as this episode shows. Calling once again for government action to solve a problem that is really just a moral problem. Or rather a lack of morals problem. The empty approach to life and marriage that Laws has been waving the flag for for so long with his vulgar liaisons with drug addicts and prostitutes and his disregard for his family. I just want lowlife like Laws to shut the hell up and go away.
ReplyDeleteRed,
ReplyDeleteI don't mind him too much, in that, he is trying and he is genuinely upset about what the dregs of society do to their children (ie the little 5yo he knew who was found dead of yet undisclosed reasons and a young man arrested). So, he's looking for answers.
He may be trying to help, but it's really a dumb way of going about it. How on earth can you even enforce this law? Are they going to create the sex police, kick in the door - where's your condom boy?
ReplyDeleteIn a way it'll just as stupid as gun control, they'll only be able to screw over the law-abiding and make their life difficult. The rest will keep breaking the law or fornicating freely.