Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics: The most recent proposal for parental licensing comes from David Lykken (1995), a psychology professor at the University of Minnesota. He began his discussion by making a distinction between psychopaths and sociopaths. He used the term psychopath to denote those who have a genetic deficiency in the capacity to become socialized and sociopath for those who have no genetic impairment but who have been reared by parents who have failed to socialize them. The two types are empirically indistinguishable, and probably most psychopaths result from both genetic predisposition and poor environments. Nevertheless, the distinction is useful for thinking about how society should attempt to deal with the problem of psychopathic personality.
Lykken’s solution to the problem of sociopathic personality, in his sense of the word, is to remove the babies of psychopathic/sociopathic parents and have them reared in more effective socializing environments. To put this proposal into effect, Lykken proposes a system of parental licensure. As with previous proposals, couples wishing to have a baby would be required to apply for a license. To obtain this, the couple would have to be married, economically independent, and have no criminal record or debilitating illness. They would have to pass a course in parenting lasting about 10 weeks, the purpose of which would be partly to teach the psychological skills of child rearing and partly to eliminate those who were not strongly committed to becoming parents. Lykken did not list intelligence as a criterion for obtaining a parental license, but his proposal would select against those with low IQs because many of them would not be economically independent or able to pass the examination on child rearing. He did not give an estimate of what proportion of the population would be likely to be refused a license for parenthood…
The second way to prevent unlicensed couples from having babies would be to sterilize all children at around the age of 12. This is probably the only method for making the plan effective. When the children grow up and wish to have children, they would be required to obtain the license and could then have the sterilization reversed. There are several ways in which the sterilization and its later reversal could be carried out. At the age of 12, girls could be required to have some form of long-lasting contraception, such as an IUD (intrauterine device) or Norplant. At appropriate intervals they would be required to have their IUD checked or their Norplant capsules replaced. Women wishing to have children would have these contraceptive devices removed after obtaining their parental license. Boys would have to be sterilized by vasectomy. When they became adults and found partners with whom they wanted to have children, they would have to apply for parental licenses If these were granted, the vasectomies would be reversed. If this failed, sperm could be taken from their testes and used to fertilize their partners.
This is probably the only practical solution to the enforcement of a parental licensing program. Although it will no doubt seem draconian, it should be noted that most couples use contraception until they wish to have children, so the measures would only make compulsory what most couples already do voluntarily. It would also dramatically reduce the number of abortions, and many would regard this as a desirable feature of the proposal. The mandatory sterilization of boys is more contentious than the requirement of long-lasting contraception for girls, but it could well come to be recognized as the best solution to the otherwise intractable problem of irresponsible men who do not care if they get girls pregnant or who take pride in fathering numerous children whom they frequently abandon. In time, the mandatory sterilization of boys might come to seem no more objectionable than inoculations against infectious diseases, which are taken for granted as desirable. Alternatively, technological developments may provide a means for sterilizing boys for a temporary period, which would be more acceptable to public opinion than vasectomy. A possible development of this kind would be the production of a virus causing temporary sterilization. Contraceptive viruses were developed in Australia in 1997 for the sterilization of rabbits, kangaroos, and other pests. Different viruses can produce sterilization for varying lengths of time. The ideal for humans would be a contraceptive virus acting for about 10 years that could be given to 12-year-old boys. When they were aged 22, they could apply for licenses for parenthood. If they failed to obtain these, they could be vasectomized. This would not preclude them from reapplying for the parental license and, if this were granted, having children by a reversal of the vasectomy or by the extraction of sperm from testes and the artificial insemination of a licensed partner.
