In this article I will argue that licensing parents is not only impractical but also irrational. Hugh Laffollette, the author, makes many assumptions. However, many of his premises are assumptions and ultimately do not support his conclusion that licensing parents would help determine who is eligible to become a parent and also that doing so would help children become more appropriate for adult life. Licensing parents would be a tedious and even difficult system to set up. So in this article I will discuss this point by explaining that it may be almost impossible for us to establish a concrete way to determine who should be licensed and who should not. Laffollette believes that parents should be required to license under the regulations we already have in place in our society. In our society we normally regulate activities such as driving, and we also regulate professions such as doctors, lawyers and psychologists because the activities they perform can be harmful to others. Laffollette's first criterion, or premise, goes on to suggest that activities that may be harmful to others should require regulation and licensing and also have demonstrated competence for safe performance. Every year more than half a million children suffer physical abuse or neglect by their parents, 1 in 10 children suffer from child abuse. 1 in 16 children are sexually abused and nearly 1 in 10 children witness family violence. Also be aware that the number of children who died in the United States due to abuse or neglect in 2012 was a depressing 1,593. It's easy to see why Laffollette argues that "parenting is a potentially very harmful activity for children." With these statistics we see that parents... at the center of the paper... their age, financial stability and relationship stability. It is not the government's job to legislate against women's choices. With the government having abortion regulations, it tells these people when it is the right time for them to give birth. It in turn ensures unwanted pregnancies and allows a fetus to grow into a child who will grow up in a non-conductive and destructive environment without the love, care and stability a child needs. Loffolette might argue that abortion causes harm to the fetus and therefore should be regulated. However, arguments against abortion are simply a moral argument subject to personal interpretation, leading to the conclusion that it should not be legislated against. As for harm to the fetus, a fetus is neither legally nor scientifically a person, so abortion cannot be equated with the murder of a human being.