Posted on 01/23/2015 7:06:04 AM PST by NYer
In the pages of the Times of Trenton on January 20, a psychologist named Ronald J. Coughlin published an op-ed titled “Fundamental Changes Would Better American Society.” Mr. Coughlin is worried about a lot of the right things: alcohol abuse, the divorce rate, childbearing out of wedlock (particularly among teens). But what ideas he has for “fundamental changes”! The idea, for instance, that because science tells us about the maturing brain we ought to raise the drinking age to twenty-five is going to go over big, with an electorate that can vote at eighteen. (Mr. Coughlin may want to change that too, for all I know.)
The real jaw-dropper, however, comes in Mr. Coughlin’s proposals about marriage and childbearing:
To prevent divorce and strengthen families, all couples seeking marriage licenses would be required to go through two or three months of training to learn about relationships, similar to the way one goes through training to get a driver’s license. In order to obtain the license, the couples would have to pass an examination showing mastery of the elements of a successful, long-term relationship.
To reduce and eventually eliminate the tide of teenage birth in our country, all parents would be required to have a license in order to have a child. Prospective parents would have to go through rigorous evaluation as well as certification in order to have children.
I’m sure Mr. Coughlin is a well-meaning gentleman, or I’d like to think so anyway, so I wonder if he knows that he has backed himself into fascism. I use that word advisedly, and not to set out troll bait for the comboxes and the twitterverse.
Many churches offer counseling (they rarely call it “training”) to couples planning to marry. The Catholic Church in particular offers and sometimes requires a “Pre-Cana” process so that couples understand the sacramental and other vital features of the bond they intend to create with one another. But I think Mr. Coughlin envisions the employment of state agencies for this, backed by state power. Take the course, pass the examination, or you cannot be married. Anyone who trusts the bureaucrats of the modern state to administer such a system wisely, without the routinization of tyranny, is far too naive to be practicing psychology.
But then we come to his related prescription: “a license in order to have a child.” No one sensible wants unwed childbearing, easy divorce and child abandonment, and an increase in the number of single teen moms. But if Mr. Coughlin would think through the inexorable logic of his own proposal, it is this: The state decides if young people who want to marry are “ready” for it, and says “no” to those who do not meet its standards. The state then “certifies” some of the couples it permits to marry to be parents—but not others. Presumably no single woman would be so certified. And when the inevitable happens, and some young women (married or single) get pregnant without the state’s prior certification of their privilege to be mothers?
Mr. Coughlin’s bright idea has no hope of working without a system of forced abortion administered by the state. No system requiring “a license in order to have a child” has any chance of working in practice—so long as young people do what young people have always done—without taking young pregnant women by the arm, escorting them into abortion clinics, and compelling them to submit to the killing of their children.
Mr. Coughlin has in fact proposed a totalitarian horror of the kind that has made China a living hell for young couples who want more than one child. If he has thought this through, he is a fascist, perhaps in the American eugenic division (see Sanger, Margaret). If he has not thought this through, he is a very great fool. I pray he is only the latter.
Matthew J. Franck is Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute.
Catholic ping!
Book marked to watch this thread to see how many “conservatives” come out in favor of it.
We have had so called conservatives come out in favor of involuntary sterilization. (They don’t stick around long after doing so.)
I guess that Mr. Coughlin is a big fan of the Communist Chinese, because this is very close to their “one child only” law. And I wonder if he has fathered any children and if he thinks he should have gotten a government license before him and his female reproductive partner produced that child(ren).
And of course, we could have government mandated implant of birth control measures for males and females at puberty and the removal of them upon the granting of a license to procreate.
As long as they stay in New Jailsey, let them have their totalitarianism, I say!
While we are in there implanting something, doesn't it just make sense to implant a chip to allow people to buy and sell? The 666Series RFID is ready for use.
I do think our churches should be giving courses in parenting. Voluntary of course. We need to be giving young couples encouragement and help in starting strong families. A lot of new parents live far away from their own parents and don’t have the same support as in years passed.
The only way to enforce this license to have a child is if all kids around age 12 had a contraceptive implant that was required under force of law to remain in place until you had permission to take it out, as well as mandatory abortions for those pregnant without a license.
Government as parent
I’ve always found psychologists in the public eye to be tyrannical.
I heard they're getting that app on the iPhone! The trendy progs will just LOVE it!
I would also be open to restricting their rights to vote.
Take his license away and send him to Bellevue.
Personally, I think the tax deduction for a child should only apply to children conceived within marriage and living with both biological parents. A condition of divorce should be assignment of the tax break to only one of the parties.
Totally agree. The Protestants have fallen down in this area, badly.
Mao with a Jersey accent!
Personally, I think the tax deduction for a child should only apply to children conceived within marriage and living with both biological parents. A condition of divorce should be assignment of the tax break to only one of the parties.
______________
Most people on the dole having out of wedlock kids don’t file and perhaps get some monies back via credits.
Drunk on government, are we?
This is part of the marriage vows taken by the man and wife. Not the state’s business at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.