Licensing parents

Before I refute my opponents fundamental points I feel it is necessary to summarize his argument to make it easier to follow, First off, my opponent failed to define that this policy would be specific to the United States. While it is for the most part irrelevant that he is now limiting the debate specifically to the U.S. I felt it necessary to point out that he failed to define this in his opening argument. However, ironically, it actually makes it easier to make my case as historically the U.S. actually passed and implemented eugenics laws in the early 1900s and continued to abide by them all the way to the 1970's in certain states. http://www.uvm.edu... The main point that my opponent makes is that issuing licences to parents infringes upon American freedoms. He ignores all the benefits that this policy, in how I defined it, would offer. Since no counter argument was made the benefits I suggested stand. The harm of he suggests is two main points: 1) That good parents might not be able to receive a license. 2) That bad parents might be able to get a license. The third potential harm mentioned, that I suggest be ignored because it is outside the realm of the debate as it is merely a "slippery slope" scare tactic is: If we allow this type of regulation what could happen next? As I have effectively broken down his argument I will now begin my refutation of my opponent. My opponent seems to care deeply about American freedom however, if one asserts that American freedom is derived from the Constitution of the U.S. then one cannot say that this policy limits freedom as it would be well within the bounds of the Constitution. While I would say that eugenics is a far more radical and discriminatory of a practice (sterilization of undesirables), if it was at one point implemented in the U.S. and never ruled unconstitutional then it is not an infringement upon American freedom as only that which is unconstitutional could be considered an abrogation of American freedom. Furthermore, my policy falls in line with other non-discriminatory policies currently implemented in the U.S. As I stated before it will not be based on age, race, sexual identity, creed, ethnicity, nationality, or genetic attribute. The policy will solely be based on two criteria. 1) The willingness of the parent to care for the child 2) The mental capacity of the parent to care for the child (mental illness that could be detrimental to the child's care, care being the defining word here, the mental illness itself is not the variable that will be judged) All prospective parents would be required to pass a test, a simple test not unlike that which can be taken at the DMV, which is another government entity which issues licences to protect the safety of the population as a whole. This test would be a multiple choice exam in which a minimum number of question would have to be answer correctly in order to pass. The test unlike the DMV exam could be taken innumerable times, however a mandatory 4 hour child development class would have to be taken in between attempts at the parenting licence exam. If the prospective parent fails to complete this exam they lose their child to CPS at its birth until they are able to pass the exam or seek treatment for a debilitating mental illness which could disqualify them from a licence, they would have to continue with treatment and receive a "conditional licence" as long as they regularly attend therapy sessions and take all prescribed medication. As you can see, this specific policy would not stop a good parent from being unable to get a licence, as they just would have to care enough to learn basic parenting practices and they have unlimited times to take the exam. This policy would deter bad parents from trying to raise children and while it isn't 100% fool proof it would at least be better than nothing, which my opponent advocates. As I have successfully refuted all my opponents arguments and he has failed to address any of mine I have already won the debate.