• 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
Actually, no you dont. Im also a taxpayer or rather my husband is now, You are not reaching into your pockets and handing me money... in fact for the most part China is! You're not paying a dime towards welfare in all likelihood. You probably paid for some nonsensical mealworm experiment. Who are you to control anything pertaining to my life, especially anything pertaining to my health or natural rights? BC can have horrible side effects. Depo causes blood clots, osteoporosis and BMD loss, migraines and can increase breast cancer risks. IUDs can cause cervical cancer and become imbeded i the uterus requiring surgery. Most progesterone BC in pill form cause risls for blood clots, pulmonary and other embolisms, problems with the liver and kidneys, along with the ever present risk of allergic reaction and life threatening ectopic pregnancies. If taken too long into the first trimester some raise risks of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus. And tubal ligation is much more dangerous than a vasectomy.

Why should whatever minute contribution your personal taxes might make to welfare funding give you any right to control or coerce me into possible health risks?

Well said Chelsea. A taxpayer's dollar does not earn them the right to assault another person's body with a surgery or impose medicine that could do great harm.
 
I believe the drug theory has been tossed out the window. Arizona tested something rediculous like 82,000 people to find one lonely person tested positive for drugs. Florida tested 72,000 or so with 20 people testing positive. The states didnt reduce their caseloads abf spent more money testing than the denied cases saved them.
 
What is to stop someone who is on welfare - but wants a baby - from going off welfare, having the baby and then going back on it?

And what is to stop her doing this over and over again?

Or are you people actually forcing women to be permanently sterilized to be eligible for welfare?

That's the premise we have been given. The taxpayer via the government has the right to impose a permanent surgical penalty on a woman in return for welfare.
 
That's the premise we have been given. The taxpayer via the government has the right to impose a permanent surgical penalty on a woman in return for welfare.

So if an 18 year old woman gets laid off in a city she just moved to and just needs to go on welfare for a month until she can find a job - she has to be permanently sterilized to get one lousy welfare check?

That's ridiculous.


And what about men - do they have to do the same thing (they better or then it's totally discrimatory)?


Fortunately, there is NO WAY such a law would ever pass through Congress - let alone be signed by the POTUS...unless they all have political death wishes.
 
Last edited:
So if an 18 year old woman gets laid off in a city she just moved to and just needs to go on welfare for a month until she can find a job - she has to be permanently sterilized to get one lousy welfare check?

That's ridiculous.


And what about men - do they have to do the same thing (they better or then it's totally discrimatory)?


Fortunately, there is NO WAY such a law would ever pass through Congress - let alone be signed by the POTUS...unless they all have political death wishes.

Yes, that's it in a really ugly nutshell. Her reproductive rights for money. No mention of men, thus far, either as applicants for welfare or as the father of a baby of a woman who applies for welfare.

It's not just ridiculous, it's horrific.

I don't see how such a law could pass, but the discussion is pretty chilling.
 
What is going to happen when we reach the carrying capacity of the planet?
 
We cannot prejudge what a person will do. It's been said many times in this thread, being on welfare is not a crime. Taking advantage, exploiting a person's desperation is immoral.

Is it immoral to make a warm place for a homeless addict to stay (at a residential treatment center) contingent on them actually entering treatment? There are all sorts of rational contingencies we put on people who need and accept help.

The mother that injects drugs, feeds a baby alcohol or in any way harms the child is going to jail for abuse. They've committed a crime and should be punished.

It is even more abusive and causes even more damage when they pour, snort or inject the stuff into their own bodies while they're pregnant. Why you are so protective over the fertility of those who by virtue of their fertility and their addiction are causing irreparable harm to the most innocent forms of human life... is odd.

What you are refusing to acknowledge is the right for us not to have the government assault our bodies

Obvious exaggeration.

Well said Chelsea. A taxpayer's dollar does not earn them the right to assault another person's body with a surgery or impose medicine that could do great harm.

That's the premise we have been given. The taxpayer via the government has the right to impose a permanent surgical penalty on a woman in return for welfare.

More exaggeration. The procedure offered to be paid for plus an extra few hundred dollars of cash is called "the right to assault another person's body." Um, no.

If you believe these people are too impaired to make their voluntary medical choice in this matter, then you must feel they should not make any medical choice and perhaps should be assigned a conservator or guardian by the court. Correct?

If I decide to have a vasectomy, are you going to interfere? Doesn't seem like you would. But if someone offers me $300 to get a vasectomy, would you interfere? Would that be a case of someone "assaulting my body?" It's still my choice.
 
Last edited:
That's the premise we have been given. The taxpayer via the government has the right to impose a permanent surgical penalty on a woman in return for welfare.

Birth control is NOT a surgical penalty. IF ANYTHING, having more children that you cannot afford to support is a penalty and a punishment to the child.

Explain to me HOW exactly birth control is an "assault" too please.

There is nothing unreasonable about taking birth control when you cannot afford children, and if you are relying on other people to support your children, then it is certainly not unreasonable to make birth control while receiving services mandatory. That is NOT an assault.

Just like anyone else who starts birth control, it would be under the supervision of a physician. If there were any complications or side effects, the BC can be discontinued, and another avenue pursued.

This is all just pure hyperbole. Birth control is one the SAFEST medicines we have out there and has been around for a LONG time. Most people can take them (or at least SOME form of them) without complications.
 
I believe the drug theory has been tossed out the window. Arizona tested something rediculous like 82,000 people to find one lonely person tested positive for drugs. Florida tested 72,000 or so with 20 people testing positive. The states didnt reduce their caseloads abf spent more money testing than the denied cases saved them.

Most drugs are out of your body within 24-48 hours. The only drug that really stays in your body long enough to test positive for is marijuana.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that only 20 people receiving social services do drugs out of 72,000? That is naive at best.
 
Is it immoral to make a warm place for a homeless addict to stay (at a residential treatment center) contingent on them actually entering treatment? There are all sorts of rational contingencies we put on people who need and accept help.

It is even more abusive and causes even more damage when they pour, snort or inject the stuff into their own bodies while they're pregnant. Why you are so protective over the fertility of those who by virtue of their fertility and their addiction are causing irreparable harm to the most innocent forms of human life... is odd.

Obvious exaggeration.

More exaggeration. The procedure offered to be paid for plus an extra few hundred dollars of cash is called "the right to assault another person's body." Um, no.

If you believe these people are too impaired to make their voluntary medical choice in this matter, then you must feel they should not make any medical choice and perhaps should be assigned a conservator or guardian by the court. Correct?

If I decide to have a vasectomy, are you going to interfere? Doesn't seem like you would. But if someone offers me $300 to get a vasectomy, would you interfere? Would that be a case of someone "assaulting my body?" It's still my choice.

You know which part of her mission I'm speaking to, but I'll spell it out. Offering a person desperate for their next fix or hit, $300 dollars for their reproductive ability is immoral. It is taking advantage of them.

A woman doesn't have to be on welfare to abuse her unborn child and every woman who accepts welfare, as noted in Chelsea's post, will do it. Requiring all welfare recipients to give up their reproductive rights is punishing them for being poor. That is what this policy would do.

Why are you so eager to hand over the power to determine who can have children and who cannot to the government?

It is accurate. That it is done in an operating room under anesthesia means the damage is confined to reproductive organs. It is the government using force on a person's body.

I was clearly referring to the government in that quote. Not that bogus "charity".

That's the premise we have been given. The taxpayer via the government has the right to impose a permanent surgical penalty on a woman in return for welfare.

I won't be derailed. Since you quoted it, could you please respond to it?

Then I will respond to the rest of yours.
 
Plain and simple, the government doesn't have a right, should never have the right, to force medical procedure on us, no matter how upset you are about welfare.

That social experimentation was tried, abused and ended.

What are we doing now to prevent unplanned pregnancy? Cutting services and closing Planned Parenthood. If one is serious about reducing unplanned births, then one should be a strong advocate of the government increasing these services and making them available a low cost or free as possible. When offered, many low income women in a study presented in 2012, took the long term options given them.

It feels like we're going in circles here. NO ONE is being forced to do anything. No one.

Also, there is little excuse these days to continue to have unplanned pregnancies with the many low cost options already available. One need only go to the health department to get it for free. The only thing people have to do is exercise the slightest bit of self control. Too much to ask, I guess.
 
You know which part of her mission I'm speaking to, but I'll spell it out. Offering a person desperate for their next fix or hit, $300 dollars for their reproductive ability is immoral. It is taking advantage of them.

Then should people who are so desperate for their next fix or hit be able to make ANY of their own decisions? You have called into question the ability of any active addict to make informed decisions.

A woman doesn't have to be on welfare to abuse her unborn child and every woman who accepts welfare, as noted in Chelsea's post, will do it. Requiring all welfare recipients to give up their reproductive rights is punishing them for being poor. That is what this policy would do.

I was clearly referring to the government in that quote. Not that bogus "charity".

Okay, so we're arguing about two different things at the same time. Most recently I've been talking about a private charity that offers cash to addicts to undergo the procedure. Requiring all current welfare recipients to become sterilized is quite a different idea... one that I acknowledge is not practical nor likely to find wide public acceptance.

I won't be derailed. Since you quoted it, could you please respond to it?

Then I will respond to the rest of yours.

I think it's been addressed. You had some version of this idea in your mind that was different than what I was talking about when you used that exaggerative language (e.g. "assaulting their bodies," "imposing a surgical penalty").

Regarding addicts voluntarily sterilizing themselves one more time, since you've suggested that addicts are incapable of making their own informed decision WRT sterilization, I'm still interested in whether you think they should have any rightful decision of their own. How are they incapable of making this decision, but capable of others?
 
Birth control is NOT a surgical penalty. IF ANYTHING, having more children that you cannot afford to support is a penalty and a punishment to the child.

Explain to me HOW exactly birth control is an "assault" too please.

There is nothing unreasonable about taking birth control when you cannot afford children, and if you are relying on other people to support your children, then it is certainly not unreasonable to make birth control while receiving services mandatory. That is NOT an assault.

Just like anyone else who starts birth control, it would be under the supervision of a physician. If there were any complications or side effects, the BC can be discontinued, and another avenue pursued.

This is all just pure hyperbole. Birth control is one the SAFEST medicines we have out there and has been around for a LONG time. Most people can take them (or at least SOME form of them) without complications.

I was responding to DA60 and his reference to permanent sterilization, as that has been part of the discussion. The woman in his scenario, temporary as her condition maybe would be subject to permanent sterilization, as has been suggested over the course of pages of discussion and that is punitive. I didn't say a thing about BC in that post, nor did DA60, so I cannot explain how it is an assault.

Now, as to birth control, I will say, having the government mandate medicine or a medical procedure, insertion of an IUD, as a condition of receiving benefits is not acceptable either. It goes in our bodies. I draw the line at the government forcing medication on us, regardless of how mostly safe it might be called. There are side effects to BC pills. There is a chance of perforation of the uterine wall by an IUD and that can have severe consequences. If a woman is offered and chooses this, fine. She has fully accepted the possibilities of complications of her own free will, not under the duress of trying to feed hungry children.
 
Requiring all welfare recipients to give up their reproductive rights is punishing them for being poor.

lol

Requiring that people provide and care for the children they produce is not a frickin punishment. People are not entitled to welfare. I don't want to pay for other people to bump uglies. That's not my responsibility. You gotta pay to play. Such is life, and freeloaders shouldn't be having large families for the rest of us to fund for two or more decades. THAT is punishing everyone else for making better decisions.
 
It feels like we're going in circles here. NO ONE is being forced to do anything. No one.

Also, there is little excuse these days to continue to have unplanned pregnancies with the many low cost options already available. One need only go to the health department to get it for free. The only thing people have to do is exercise the slightest bit of self control. Too much to ask, I guess.

The government has no right to impose, force, coerce a permanent surgical solution on citizen. There is force being applied. Receive help to feed her children by submitting to the will of the government, exercised on her person, or they go hungry.

The imposition of financial limitations, she can't be on welfare above a certain level of income, fine. But this what you are talking about is invasive.

I agree, birth control,condoms, pills and longer term should be be free and easy to get for low income people. They will take advantage of it, as was shown in the study minnie posted.

The government doesn't and shouldn't have a right to exercise its control via surgery. That is not too much to ask.
 
It's interesting that so many religious and other traditional GOP conservatives will fight to the death to make sure the society protects all fetuses from abortion but then don't think the society should be responsible for paying to raise the fetus. And on the flip side, that so many liberals will fight to the death to keep reproduction absolutely sacrosanct but don't have any effective ideas for interrupting the intergenerational cycles of poverty.

Both of these sides are keeping the cycle of intergenerational poverty going because the thought of abortion and/or sterilization makes them emotionally upset. Liberals want society to be on the hook to pay for the needs of all the least functional people without any effective plan to prevent the dysfunction. Conservatives want to protect all fetuses but then don't want to be on the hook. Both are being led by their blind emotions.

"More education" is not going to help the people who DON'T WANT to be educated and make smarter choices. Some people WANT TO BE STUPID and party, because being stupid and partying is the only escape they know from the painful realities of their lives. Offering people a smart alternative to stupidity is not going to work for a lot of people who rely on that escape to cope with their own pain. They aren't going to care about free birth control. It's already damn near free. It could hardly be easier to prevent pregnancy. And yet it's not happening.

I think we need to think outside the politically correct talking points and start getting a little more serious.
 
Last edited:
Then should people who are so desperate for their next fix or hit be able to make ANY of their own decisions? You have called into question the ability of any active addict to make informed decisions.

Okay, so we're arguing about two different things at the same time. Most recently I've been talking about a private charity that offers cash to addicts to undergo the procedure. Requiring all current welfare recipients to become sterilized is quite a different idea... one that I acknowledge is not practical nor likely to find wide public acceptance.

I think it's been addressed. You had some version of this idea in your mind that was different than what I was talking about when you used that exaggerative language (e.g. "assaulting their bodies," "imposing a surgical penalty").

Regarding addicts voluntarily sterilizing themselves one more time, since you've suggested that addicts are incapable of making their own informed decision WRT sterilization, I'm still interested in whether you think they should have any rightful decision of their own. How are they incapable of making this decision, but capable of others?

So your answer is to declare drug addicts wards of the state? That's a step off the cliff. The government's power grows even greater?

Yes I have called into question their ability to make a free choice because you are offering a desperate person the thing they are aching for in exchange for their fertility. Their ability is impaired, not absent.

You quoted my post about the government not having a right to impose a permanent surgical penalty as cost to receiving welfare. So while we are discussing both, you did not address the quoted post. I'm glad that you don't think this will go anywhere.

If you follow the posts backwards, it is clear what I was quoting and discussing as to whether it was the government or the charity. I stand by my language in each line of discussion. I don't believe you addressed the government portion of the debate though. We can leave it at that or you can now.

Above, I answered that last question. Exploiting an impairment of judgement caused by drugs, by offering money that will surely, and acknowledged by the person running the charity, go for more drugs does not rise to the level of being declared a ward of the state. That, fortunately, has a very high standard, so that power may not be abused.
 
lol

Requiring that people provide and care for the children they produce is not a frickin punishment. People are not entitled to welfare. I don't want to pay for other people to bump uglies. That's not my responsibility. You gotta pay to play. Such is life, and freeloaders shouldn't be having large families for the rest of us to fund for two or more decades. THAT is punishing everyone else for making better decisions.

No, and I didn't say providing and care for the children was punishment. Requiring surgical procedures is though.

I guess the idea is to make them pay as painfully and as egregiously as possible.
 
So your answer is to declare drug addicts wards of the state? That's a step off the cliff. The government's power grows even greater?

I'm just trying to follow your insinuation that addicts can't make this decision to its logical conclusion. Trying to figure out what your opinion really is of the capacity of addicts to make their own adult decisions...

Yes I have called into question their ability to make a free choice because you are offering a desperate person the thing they are aching for in exchange for their fertility. Their ability is impaired, not absent.

Still seeking clarity, as this brings up an interesting legal issue about who calls the shots for these people (themselves, or someone else who's not under the influence).

You quoted my post about the government not having a right to impose a permanent surgical penalty as cost to receiving welfare. So while we are discussing both, you did not address the quoted post. I'm glad that you don't think this will go anywhere.

If you follow the posts backwards, it is clear what I was quoting and discussing as to whether it was the government or the charity. I stand by my language in each line of discussion. I don't believe you addressed the government portion of the debate though. We can leave it at that or you can now.

I have almost no faith that those in government or other positions of immense power would actually want the poorest 50% of the country to end the cycle they're in. Our economy has become quite accustomed to the zero-savings, consumer-driven and debt-driven cycle of most people spending money faster than they make it. That's what all our policies, monetary, fiscal and otherwise are trying to accomplish: the whole country putting itself into debt and spending money faster than they can find it. It is not just because people are opposed to reproductive control measures that the government would never go there. Having children has a calming effect on otherwise unpredictable and destructive people. Some people unfortunately need to have children to halt their path toward self-destruction. Many people do fall in line somewhat and become obedient, humble citizens just wanting a bit of food when they have a family. Government and other powerful institutions like these types of desperate people very much.

Ending the cycle of intergenerational poverty and dependence on the state would cause major social, political and economic disruption, so government would never even go there. I realize this doesn't completely answer your challenge about the invasive nature of the welfare-for-sterilization concept, but I have argued my position nonetheless because my belief system de-prioritizes reproductive rights relative to fetal/babies' rights, especially in the most severe cases such as drug dependence.
 
... They aren't going to care about free birth control. It's already damn near free. It could hardly be easier to prevent pregnancy. And yet it's not happening. ...

.

Long term Birth control options are much more expensive than pills or condoms.
$700-$800 one time for about 5 years for long term BC vs. $10-$50 a month for BC pills.
But they are also more effective.
The failure rate of BC pills or condoms is 1% to 5% even when used correctly.
The failure rate for long term BC is about .3% (that's point three percent)

FRom the following article:

But when cost and other barriers are lifted, the opinion notes that the Contraceptive CHOICE Project found that
]U]more than two-thirds of women age 14-20 chose LARC methods.[/U]


The project, at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, recruited 9,256 women and studies the effect of free access to birth control methods.

Perhaps the biggest consideration for women -- and especially adolescent girls -- is a contraceptive's upfront cost.

At an average of about $700-$800 before insurance, the $10-$50 cost of a monthly pack of birth control pills can seem favorable.

Without a reduced fee, the lowest price Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania can offer Mirena is $800, said Rebecca Cavanaugh, vice president for public affairs for the local chapter.

Experts recommend women pick long-term birth control method - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Peventing pregnancy is happening in fact pregnancy among teens has gone down.
From this article:

There’s good news from researchers at the Guttmacher Institute. “Only” 7% of teens and “only” about 16% of sexually experienced teens got pregnant in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.

It’s good news because the U.S. teen pregnancy rate continues to drop. Way back in 1990, the teen pregnancy rate peaked at 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 teen females. That means 11.7% of all teens got pregnant that year.

Among sexually experienced teens — those who ever had intercourse — 22.3% got pregnant in 1990.

The teen birth rate and the teen abortion rate also went down:

4% of teens gave birth in 2008, down from the 1991 peak of 6.2%.
1.8% of teens had an abortion in 2008 — the lowest abortion rate since abortion was legalized and down from the 1988 peak of 4.35% in 1988.
From 1986 to 2008, the proportion of teen pregnancies ending in abortion dropped by a third, from 46% to 31%.
Why is the teen pregnancy rate dropping? According to a 2007 study, it’s mainly due to better use of birth control. Teens are using more effective forms of contraception.

Read more:
Drop in Teen Pregnancy Due to Birth Control « WebMD Newsroom
 
Last edited:
Long term Birth control options are much more expensive than pills or condoms.
$700-$800 one time for about 5 years for long term BC vs. $10-$50 a month for BC pills.

$700-$800 for a 5-year long solution? That's actually cheaper if pills are more than $13/mo.

Project Prevention, which I've referenced several times in the thread, also offers cash for long-term birth control.
 
Weird...never thought I'd see so many "Libertarians" supporting a policy that would intrude on the most fundamental "natural rights" a person has.
 
Weird...never thought I'd see so many "Libertarians" supporting a policy that would intrude on the most fundamental "natural rights" a person has.

Haha, I hear ya. Earlier in the thread I acknowledged this is one of my least libertarian stances.

The flip side is that I never thought I'd see so many liberals objecting to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and intergenerational poverty cycles. Makes it seem like they don't want to end the cycle of poverty, but rather preserve it by letting it breed and continuing to feed it.
 
Haha, I hear ya. Earlier in the thread I acknowledged this is one of my least libertarian stances.

The flip side is that I never thought I'd see so many liberals objecting to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and intergenerational poverty cycles. Makes it seem like they don't want to end the cycle of poverty, but rather preserve it by letting it breed and continuing to feed it.

I think there are limits to what route you go to in order to prevent intergenerational poverty. Striping away reproductive rights is one of those things.
 
Haha, I hear ya. Earlier in the thread I acknowledged this is one of my least libertarian stances.

The flip side is that I never thought I'd see so many liberals objecting to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and intergenerational poverty cycles. Makes it seem like they don't want to end the cycle of poverty, but rather preserve it by letting it breed and continuing to feed it.

I am not rejecting preventing unwanted pregnancies.
I reject mandating that welfare recipients be sterilized or use long term BC.
That would be taking away their rights to privacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom