PERHAPS the quality of family life should be emphasised over child quantity.
In the book Childhood Disrupted, the author writes that even “well-meaning and loving parents can unintentionally do harm to a child if they are not well informed about human development” (pg.24).
Thus, failing at parenthood can occur as soon as the decision is made to conceive and carry a baby to term.
By this I do not mean they necessarily are or will be “bad” parents. Rather, it is that too many people will procreate regardless of not being sufficiently knowledgeable of child development science to parent in a psychologically functional/healthy manner.
They seem to perceive thus treat human procreative “rights” as though they (potential parents) will somehow, in blind anticipation, be innately inclined to sufficiently understand and appropriately nurture their children’s naturally developing minds and needs.
As liberal democracies we cannot or will not prevent anyone from bearing children, even those who recklessly procreate. We can, however, educate young people for this most important job ever, even those who plan to remain childless, through mandatory high-school child-development science curriculum.
While it will not be overly complicated, it would be notably more informational than diaper changing and baby feeding, which often are already covered by home economics curriculum.
If nothing else, such child-development science curriculum could offer students an idea or clue as to whether they are emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood. Given what is at stake, should they not at least be equipped with such valuable science-based knowledge?
After all, a mentally as well as physically sound future should be every child’s fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter; a world in which Child Abuse Prevention Month (every April) clearly needs to run 365 days of the year. - Frank Sterle Jr