Re: " then they get what they get"
We evolved as groups. As happens it was the duty of all society to look after children. This was probably one of the reasons that humans did so well. The parents, who tended to be younger, could wander off hunting for food, while the older folk could look after the kids and do whatever early agriculture they were into. Probably a gross simplification - but it'll do. So it was probably granny and older siblings whose job it was to stop the kiddies from eating those tasty looking poisonous berries. As well as the dislike of bitter-tasting things, built into most children, then goes away as they grow up. But if the group as a whole failed to nurture its children, then it was likely to get out-competed by the one just over the veldt, that did.
The development of the 'nuclear family' and the raising of children being the sole responsibility of the parents is mostly quite a new thing. When most people lived in small communities that barely changed over decades, it tended to be seen as the duty of the whole village/street/whatever to raise the kids. Certainly that was still true in 1940s / 50s South London, where my Mum said that you couldn't get away with smoking on the top deck of the bus, because there was always a friend/neighbour/relative around who'd spot you - and it would eventually get back to your parents.
Society has changed. In some ways for the worse, with less sense of community. But then that whole community of everyone living in each others' pockets could also be pretty stifling. We're currently undergoing big changes in society, and we tend to be slower to adapt to those changes than they happen. So who knows what family life will be like in 30 years, or what relationship there will be between state, community, extended family and close family?
We don't want 1984 or the government issuing breeding licenses. We probably also don't want a free-for-all. It's all rather complicated I'm afraid.