• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A license to have children [W:81]

A license to have children?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 20.6%

  • No

    Votes: 79 73.8%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 6 5.6%
  • Total voters
    107
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Okay. Whom do you trust to decide who should be sterilized and who shouldn't? Do you trust that such a program, once instituted, would be limited to strictly income-based determination?
Click to expand...

I don't but somehow those advocating for sterilization for benefits or even worse, forced sterilization, don't see the danger to their own rights.
 
Gina said:
I don't but somehow those advocating for sterilization for benefits or even worse, forced sterilization, don't see the danger to their own rights.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Okay. Whom do you trust to decide who should be sterilized and who shouldn't? Do you trust that such a program, once instituted, would be limited to strictly income-based determination?
Click to expand...

Like I said, it would be limited to those collecting welfare who are collecting benefits for more than one child. So I guess it would be those "number cruncher" people that Neo was talking about earlier.

Honestly though, I haven't delved that far into it. I just thought it was an interesting debate topic, as to why people would be for and against it.
 
ChrisL said:
Like I said, it would be limited to those collecting welfare who are collecting benefits for more than one child. So I guess it would be those "number cruncher" people that Neo was talking about earlier.

Honestly though, I haven't delved that far into it. I just thought it was an interesting debate topic, as to why people would be for and against it.
Click to expand...

Well, it would be nice to have a negative go with a positive. Positive = free taxpayer money, negative = elimination of the chance that you can have a child that will be used to get even more taxpayer money.

Unless people know that there are consequences to incorrect behavior and actions, they'll keep doing it.
 
ChrisL said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

As Viktyr said,

Do you trust that such a program, once instituted, would be limited to strictly income-based determination?
Click to expand...

It was suggested earlier in the thread that a DNA database could be set up. Information collected from DNA analysis not income based.

The applications are infinite when one group feels they have the right to limit the rights of others, not in their group. There is always the chance then, that one could fall outside the circle of those making the decisions.

The ideas being espoused in this thread are quite frightening, Chris.
 
No, but I will agree unfortunately that a very high % of children are born to incompetent parents, usually teenagers/young adults that aren't married.
 
ChrisL said:
Honestly though, I haven't delved that far into it. I just thought it was an interesting debate topic, as to why people would be for and against it.
Click to expand...

I'm not judging. I'm just offering the counter-argument you asked for. Naked self-interest often serves nicely where morality fails.

I would actually support long-term temporary birth control being mandatory for people receiving benefits and free voluntary sterilization for people with inheritable defects or whom cannot raise children. It's just that such measures would be the limit-- the absolute furthest limit-- of negative eugenics programs I could support in good conscience. Anything else would be an infringement of peoples' inherent reproductive rights, which I would have to oppose as forcefully as I would oppose restrictions on abortion or birth control.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
I'm not judging. I'm just offering the counter-argument you asked for. Naked self-interest often serves nicely where morality fails.

I would actually support long-term temporary birth control being mandatory for people receiving benefits and free voluntary sterilization for people with inheritable defects or whom cannot raise children. It's just that such measures would be the limit-- the absolute furthest limit-- of negative eugenics programs I could support in good conscience. Anything else would be an infringement of peoples' inherent reproductive rights, which I would have to oppose as forcefully as I would oppose restrictions on abortion or birth control.
Click to expand...

As long as the temporary birth control didn't have side effects, I think this sounds reasonable.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
I'm not judging. I'm just offering the counter-argument you asked for. Naked self-interest often serves nicely where morality fails.

I would actually support long-term temporary birth control being mandatory for people receiving benefits and free voluntary sterilization for people with inheritable defects or whom cannot raise children. It's just that such measures would be the limit-- the absolute furthest limit-- of negative eugenics programs I could support in good conscience. Anything else would be an infringement of peoples' inherent reproductive rights, which I would have to oppose as forcefully as I would oppose restrictions on abortion or birth control.
Click to expand...

I undedrstand yopur point.

But what happens to those women that refuse to voluntarily sterilize themselves but do not (whether out of laziness, stupidiy or whatever reason) make enough money to adequately feed/cloth/house themselves and their children?
Do they starve while living on the streets? Are their children forced to live in extreme poverty because their parents are pathetic and the government will not help without conditions being met?

Imo, you cannot force people to have to do something to get the basic necessities of life.

Emergency food/shelter/medical/dental should be for everybody - no strings attached.

And I emphasize the word 'emergency' - as in government run 'flop houses' with 'soup kitchens' with attached medical/dental clinics.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
But what happens to those women that refuse to voluntarily sterilize themselves but do not (whether out of laziness, stupidiy or whatever reason) make enough money to adequately feed/cloth/house themselves and their children?
Do they starve while living on the streets? Are their children forced to live in extreme poverty because their parents are pathetic and the government will not help without conditions being met?
Click to expand...

That's really their own fault, now isn't it? If they won't accept the conditions of government aid, they don't qualify for it. If they can't support the children they have because they won't comply with the aid requirements, then their children should be removed from their homes. I live in public housing. Quite a few of my rights, as a human being and an American citizen, are curtailed as a condition of my accepting public assistance-- you absolutely can force people to accept conditions for government aid.
 
If you voted 'Yes', you support a fascist society.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
That's really their own fault, now isn't it? If they won't accept the conditions of government aid, they don't qualify for it. If they can't support the children they have because they won't comply with the aid requirements, then their children should be removed from their homes. I live in public housing. Quite a few of my rights, as a human being and an American citizen, are curtailed as a condition of my accepting public assistance-- you absolutely can force people to accept conditions for government aid.
Click to expand...

Wonderful.

So what you are really saying is that women who cannot adequately raise their children (as judged by the state) must sterilize themselves or have their children forcibly removed from them by the government.

No thank you.

I would NEVER vote for that.

Imo, every person has a right to the basic necessities of life...no strings attached.


My solution is emergency government shelters.


And think about it...which is going to cost more?

Providing emergency shelter for her and her children?

Or forcibly taking the children from their mother and having the state look after them?

I'd say the latter by about 10 times.


Your plan is neither compassionate nor cost effective.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Gehrig said:
I'm not judging. I'm just offering the counter-argument you asked for. Naked self-interest often serves nicely where morality fails.

I would actually support long-term temporary birth control being mandatory for people receiving benefits and free voluntary sterilization for people with inheritable defects or whom cannot raise children. It's just that such measures would be the limit-- the absolute furthest limit-- of negative eugenics programs I could support in good conscience. Anything else would be an infringement of peoples' inherent reproductive rights, which I would have to oppose as forcefully as I would oppose restrictions on abortion or birth control.
Click to expand...

I could get behind the temporary long-term birth control. You must remember that birth control is 100% effective though, and some people cannot even take birth control because of allergies or sensitivities and side effects from the hormones.

Another option would be an IUD (intrauterine device), which is pretty effective but also can have complications.

Sterilization, OTH, is 100% reliable. A woman can have her tubes ligated and the procedure is reversible in most cases if they leave enough length of fallopian tube.

Another pro to mandatory birth control is it would probably be a lot cheaper than a sterilization procedure.
 
Gina said:
As Viktyr said,



It was suggested earlier in the thread that a DNA database could be set up. Information collected from DNA analysis not income based.

The applications are infinite when one group feels they have the right to limit the rights of others, not in their group. There is always the chance then, that one could fall outside the circle of those making the decisions.
Click to expand...

Good morning Gina! I don't think that would be an issue as, according to my scenario, it would ONLY be for those looking to collect welfare who have more than one child. I don't think the government would want to spend money sterilizing others, and for what reason would they want to do that?

The ideas being espoused in this thread are quite frightening, Chris.
Click to expand...

We're just debating and talking about it. I don't know why anyone would feel frightened. In formal debate situations, you pick a topic, you pick a side and you go to it and attack it! :lol:
Click to expand...
 
DA60 said:
I undedrstand yopur point.

But what happens to those women that refuse to voluntarily sterilize themselves but do not (whether out of laziness, stupidiy or whatever reason) make enough money to adequately feed/cloth/house themselves and their children?
Do they starve while living on the streets? Are their children forced to live in extreme poverty because their parents are pathetic and the government will not help without conditions being met?

Imo, you cannot force people to have to do something to get the basic necessities of life.

Emergency food/shelter/medical/dental should be for everybody - no strings attached.

And I emphasize the word 'emergency' - as in government run 'flop houses' with 'soup kitchens' with attached medical/dental clinics.
Click to expand...

Why not? If they are not supporting themselves and are relying on the government/tax payers, why should they be able to have MORE children for US to support?

I'm waiting for a GOOD answer to this question. Not "just because you can't do that." That's not a reason.
 
DA60 said:
Wonderful.

So what you are really saying is that women who cannot adequately raise their children (as judged by the state) must sterilize themselves or have their children forcibly removed from them by the government.

No thank you.

I would NEVER vote for that.

Imo, every person has a right to the basic necessities of life...no strings attached.


My solution is emergency government shelters.


And think about it...which is going to cost more?

Providing emergency shelter for her and her children?

Or forcibly taking the children from their mother and having the state look after them?

I'd say the latter by about 10 times.


Your plan is neither compassionate nor cost effective.
Click to expand...

Your plan is terrible because there is no way on God's green earth that you'll ever have enough "emergency housing" and supplies for ALL of those people and their children. We cannot even keep up with our own homeless population.

The ONLY way to prevent these things is mandatory birth control or mandatory sterilization.
 
First of all, the person who is on welfare (barring using it as a "stepping stone" which it was MEANT to be) has obviously made some very poor choices to begin with. So, okay, we'll let that go and help support this person because we are a kind and generous society who does not want to see anyone go hungry or homeless.

That is fine. However, why on earth should this welfare recipient be allowed to continue to have MORE children? How is that logical in any way, shape or form? That is just like shooting yourself in the foot before running a race.

I want to hear some LOGICAL reasons why mandatory sterilization/long-term birth control is NOT a good idea. I'll be waiting. :)
 
So far the only really good reason to reject this idea is government interference. :shrug:
 
ChrisL said:
Your plan is terrible because there is no way on God's green earth that you'll ever have enough "emergency housing" and supplies for ALL of those people and their children. We cannot even keep up with our own homeless population.

The ONLY way to prevent these things is mandatory birth control or mandatory sterilization.
Click to expand...

Of course you would have enough. You put one major shelter in every major city/regional area.

If people need the food/shelter - they will have to get to the shelter.

If they cannot make it - there will be volunteers in each region that can take them to the shelter.

If for some reason they cannot - then they will have to utilize a state welfare facilty/service.

If for some reason they cannot - then they will have to utilize a local charity.

If that is not enough....too bad because that's WAY more then most people in the world have access to.

BTW - this would not apply to those with mental/physical handicaps. They would still get welfare/disability checks.


Are you seriously saying that to run government emergency shelters (which are basically safe, clean flop houses/soup kitchens) in each regional center is more expensive then virtually the entire welfare system of the United States?

HUD alone costs $44 billion per year.

If you had 200 shelters (4 per state) and divide $44 billion into that...that leaves you $220 million dolars per shelter per year.

I guarantee you they could get by on a fraction of that cost.

Here is evidence:

'After repeated requests from AIP, The Salvation Army has prepared consolidated audited financial statements of its 9,347 centers of operation that provide counseling, shelter and other assistance to nearly 27 million people. AIP is particularly pleased with this development since The Salvation Army, unlike most other major charities, is not required to file public information because it is considered by the IRS and state authorities to be a church. These statements show over $2 billion in income and $1.6 billion in expenses for fiscal 1996.'

Salvation Army Finances & Governance- charitywatch.org

The HUD money alone is over 25 times that. And that does not include the $75 billion for Food Stamps and ALL the other federal welfare programs.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Of course you would have enough. You put one major shelter in every major city/regional area.

If people need the food/shelter - they will have to get to the shelter.

If they cannot make it - there will be volunteers in each region that can take them to the shelter.

If for some reason they cannot - then they will have to utilize a stae welfare facilty/service.

If for some reason they cannot - then they will have to utilize a local charity.

If that is not available and no one will help a starving, homeless family...then they probably die.


Are you seriously saying that to run government emergency shelters in each regional center is more expensive then virtually the entire welfare system of the United States.

If you think that then you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Good lord! We don't have enough shelters NOW.

So your plan is to just allow people to have as many children as they want while collecting welfare and to put them up in shelters? That's your plan?

And I don't understand your "if they can't" scenarios. These are people who are already collecting services that I'm referring to. People who are already collecting yet are still having more children that they cannot support or afford.

I don't think your plan solves any problems and probably just adds more.
 
ChrisL said:
Good lord! We don't have enough shelters NOW.

So your plan is to just allow people to have as many children as they want while collecting welfare and to put them up in shelters? That's your plan?

And I don't understand your "if they can't" scenarios. These are people who are already collecting services that I'm referring to. People who are already collecting yet are still having more children that they cannot support or afford.

I don't think your plan solves any problems and probably just adds more.
Click to expand...

HUD alone costs $44 billion per year.

If you had 200 shelters (4 per state) and divide $44 billion into that...that leaves you $220 million dolars per shelter per year.

I guarantee you they could get by on a fraction of that cost.

Here is evidence:

'After repeated requests from AIP, The Salvation Army has prepared consolidated audited financial statements of its 9,347 centers of operation that provide counseling, shelter and other assistance to nearly 27 million people. AIP is particularly pleased with this development since The Salvation Army, unlike most other major charities, is not required to file public information because it is considered by the IRS and state authorities to be a church. These statements show over $2 billion in income and $1.6 billion in expenses for fiscal 1996.'

Salvation Army Finances & Governance- charitywatch.org

The HUD money alone is over 25 times that. And that does not include the $75 billion for Food Stamps and ALL the other federal welfare programs.

There is WAY more then enough.


I am not going to argue with you on this.

I believe I am right and you are wrong.

And until you show links to unbiased, factual evidence to the contrary - further debate with you is clearly futile because your mind is obviously closed on the subject.
 
DA60 said:
HUD alone costs $44 billion per year.

If you had 200 shelters (4 per state) and divide $44 billion into that...that leaves you $220 million dolars per shelter per year.

I guarantee you they could get by on a fraction of that cost.

Here is evidence:

'After repeated requests from AIP, The Salvation Army has prepared consolidated audited financial statements of its 9,347 centers of operation that provide counseling, shelter and other assistance to nearly 27 million people. AIP is particularly pleased with this development since The Salvation Army, unlike most other major charities, is not required to file public information because it is considered by the IRS and state authorities to be a church. These statements show over $2 billion in income and $1.6 billion in expenses for fiscal 1996.'

Salvation Army Finances & Governance- charitywatch.org

The HUD money alone is over 25 times that. And that does not include the $75 billion for Food Stamps and ALL the other federal welfare programs.
Click to expand...

So state your proposal more clearly then. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should just do away with the welfare program as it is right now and move in the direction of shelters instead?
 
ChrisL said:
Why not? If they are not supporting themselves and are relying on the government/tax payers, why should they be able to have MORE children for US to support?

I'm waiting for a GOOD answer to this question. Not "just because you can't do that." That's not a reason.
Click to expand...
Ummmm...yes it IS a reason.

'1rea·son
noun \ˈrē-zən\
Definition of REASON
1
a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> '

Reason - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


My words in post 412 explain my thoughts on this fairly well.

If that is not 'good' enough for you...tough.

;)


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Ummmm...yes it IS a reason.

'1rea·son
noun \ˈrē-zən\
Definition of REASON
1
a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> '

Reason - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


My words in post 412 explain my thoughts on this fairly well.

If that is not 'good' enough for you...tough.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

No "just because" is NOT a reason and is not good enough for me. This is a debate, so state some valid reasons. If you don't want to debate it, then fine.
 
ChrisL said:
So state your proposal more clearly then. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should just do away with the welfare program as it is right now and move in the direction of shelters instead?
Click to expand...

Yes - except for the mentally/physically handicapped and the elderly - they were promised government assistance their whole lives. You cannot just yank that away frtom them when they did not bother (in many cases) to save up for their retirement because the government promised they would look after them.

But the subject here is having children.

So, as far as they are concerned - basically yes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom