• 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
iliveonramen said:
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.
Click to expand...

All rights have limits and no right is unconditional. As the general rule goes, the limits to one person's rights ends where another's begins. To hold reproductive rights as absolutely sacrosanct is to neglect the right of the developing baby in some cases. As a society we are pretty much ignoring this issue.

minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think people naturally are losing rights/autonomy when they sign up for benefits. It's not always as drastic/controversial as a surgical procedure (for example), but once people depend on society's redistribution to make ends meet, they have stepped onto the slippery slope toward the loss of privacy rights and various other rights. For example, let's say I've demonstrated the case that I direly need money for food, but then I'm seen purchasing liquor and cigarettes all the time. Society, or some government agency or whatever, is eventually going to object and get all up in my business for that. It would be seen as abusing the system. Whereas if I was not accepting redistribution it would not be the slightest bit of anyone's damn business whether I wanted to blow my cash on liquor and cigarettes or not.

It's the disturbing reality of the welfare state that beneficiaries invariably end up losing the same types of freedom that people in a freer society will enjoy. The societal safety net is always full of hidden little thorns, basically.
 
ChrisL said:
Welfare as it is now has been tried and abused as well. Time for a different tactic.
Click to expand...

Daniel Patrick Moynihan while serving in the Nixon administration was approached by his aide in regard to the failures of welfare policy. The aide said, "These policies are doing damage to the population in much the same way as it is helping. We should scrap the program entirely." Moynihan, who had been studying welfare policy for decades as a sociologist, and was well aware of the problems surrounding welfare, looked up at his young aide and said one word: "Oh?"
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you know that when you sign up for welfare benefits that you HAVE to give the name (or names!) of the biological father (or potential fathers) of your child/children. That means that if you don't know who the father of your child is because you slept with multiple partners, you are expected to give the names of each and every person you had sexual intercourse with who could possibly be the father. Of course, a lot of girls probably lie and say they can't remember because they were too drunk or whatever (or actually were too drunk?).

However, that has to be the BIGGEST invasion of privacy, and that is something that is REQUIRED of you in order to receive services. Long-term birth control requirement would certainly not be any more of an invasion of privacy. When you collect taxpayer monies, you are just going to have to sacrifice a little bit. The taxpayers do make the sacrifices afterall.
 
Also, when you are collecting governmental services, the government has a right to know everything about your financial and your living situation, including any assets you might have. EVERYTHING!
 
ChrisL said:
Did you know that when you sign up for welfare benefits that you HAVE to give the name (or names!) of the biological father (or potential fathers) of your child/children. That means that if you don't know who the father of your child is because you slept with multiple partners, you are expected to give the names of each and every person you had sexual intercourse with who could possibly be the father. Of course, a lot of girls probably lie and say they can't remember because they were too drunk or whatever (or actually were too drunk?).

However, that has to be the BIGGEST invasion of privacy, and that is something that is REQUIRED of you in order to receive services. Long-term birth control requirement would certainly not be any more of an invasion of privacy. When you collect taxpayer monies, you are just going to have to sacrifice a little bit. The taxpayers do make the sacrifices afterall.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding the rights to privacy thewhich is the peoples right to privacy about reproductive rights . The "privacy" precedent was set back in 1965 in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, That case nullified laws restricting a couples' right to be counseled about the use of contraceptives.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
Weird...never thought I'd see so many "Libertarians" supporting a policy that would intrude on the most fundamental "natural rights" a person has.
Click to expand...

Funny how solipsism comes through in their thoughts, isn't it? So long as it is their smaller rights, then it must be fought tooth and nail, but someone else's larger, more important rights, mankind ought to become monsters. You'll never see a group more dedicated to fight against anti-piracy efforts, gun control, or progressive taxation, but you can't bet that they will think you should be permitted to ever have children. Thankfully, there are at least some who have participated that had seen through the evil this would unleash.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Funny how solipsism comes through in their thoughts, isn't it? So long as it is their smaller rights, then it must be fought tooth and nail, but someone else's larger, more important rights, mankind ought to become monsters. You'll never see a group more dedicated to fight against anti-piracy efforts, gun control, or progressive taxation, but you can't bet that they will think you should be permitted to ever have children.
Click to expand...

This is dishonest, as these views have already been clarified, for example by the following posts:


Neomalthusian said:
I know it does, but I've seen the extreme realities (not hypotheticals) that already exist everywhere out there. My line of work has exposed me to countless profoundly damaged people whose lives were utterly ruined by their monstrous parents.

It's not that I don't respect people's rights or that I want a big intrusive government. It's that I've just seen too many children whose basic human rights were trampled on by parents who never deserved to be parents, and the damage was permanent. Seeing such permanent damage tends to deaden one's belief in unconditional reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

Neomalthusian said:
Reproductive rights are unique in that reproduction creates another human that will also have its own rights.

Therefore reproductive rights cannot be sacrosanct, as it inevitable results in a helpless life who is entitled to its needs being met by its mother and father. Reproductive rights are not just about the rights of post-pubescent humans to procreate. They are about balancing the parents' rights with the incoming rights of the newborn. When parents can't demonstrably meet the newborn's needs, their right to create the newborn should be nullified.
Click to expand...

So it's not that we are picking and choosing which rights we like while trying to trample on ones we don't. It's that we're acknowledging that new lives also end up having rights, and the rights of some of those new lives are being routinely neglected by their parents in the direct sense, as well as indirectly by our society's unconditional and sacrosanct reproductive rights at the expense of the health and wellbeing of new lives.
 
Neomalthusian said:
This is dishonest, as these views have already been clarified, for example by the following posts:
Click to expand...

Come on. Don't insult my intelligence. You literally advocated for a policy that would have millions of people sterilized, and this included my brother (which you were about as close to explicit as you can get), and now you want to try to convince me that you stand on the side of liberty. It is one thing to advocate for an evil policy, but to then say it isn't one of the biggest breaches of human liberty possible, is just sad. You even had the balls to say I was taking it too seriously!

Anyone who read your message just now should remember what a dishonest, insulting person you were just a couple of days ago.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Come on. Don't insult my intelligence. You literally advocated for a policy that would have millions of people sterilized, and this included my brother (which you were about as close to explicit as you can get), and now you want to try to convince me that you stand on the side of liberty. It is one thing to advocate for an evil policy, but to then say it isn't one of the biggest breaches of human liberty possible, is just sad. You even had the balls to say I was taking it too seriously!
Click to expand...

I said you were taking it too personally, not too seriously. But since this topic is difficult for you to think about outside the context of your own family... I'll pose a serious question: Whose rights should prevail: your brother's right to reproduce despite his inability to raise a child, or the would-be child's rights to have its needs met?

I'm not simply arguing some people should get snipped because I arbitrarily enjoy controlling people. I'm suggesting that a parent's right to reproduce should be weighed against its baby's right to have its needs met. If it's demonstrable beyond any doubt that a person can't meet its own child's needs, it logically follows that the person should not become a parent.

Anyone who read your message just now should remember what a dishonest, insulting person you were just a couple of days ago.
Click to expand...

You and others continue to distract from the fact that reproduction results in a new life that also has rights. It is unjust to all parties involved to guard reproductive rights as sacrosanct even when reproduction results in bad things for everyone: a child whose needs are neglected, the parent who feels even worse off after it's removed from the home and placed into state custody, and everyone else in society who pays for the costs associated with this intervention. We have methods for intervention which are too little too late in many cases. It's time to get a little more serious about prevention.
 
Last edited:
What if a teenager turns 18 while her parents/guardian are on welfare...does he/she have to get sterilized?

And if so - what if a daughter moves out and then moves back in with her parents who is on welfare? Does she have to be sterilized before she sets foot in the door? Can she stay the weekend? A week? A month?

How long can the offspring visit their welfare parent before the state demands they become sterilized?

And if there is a time limit - what is to stop the child from living with the parents until the limit is reached, move out and then move back again to start the time limit all over again? This could conceivably go on for years.
You could have a deal between two families. The offspring live with their parents until the time limit is up - then the families switch children during the waiting period. And then they switch back and start the time limit all over again.

And how are you going to have the government check the millions of families to make sure they are complying with the time limits?
it will cost tens of millions of dollars to watch over ALL these families.
 
Last edited:
"America" wont be sterilizing anybody in mass numbers by force anytime soon, no need to. Fix whats broken you dont punish the people and strip their rights and freedoms thats dumb and broken logic.

Also was the question "what is the punishment for have a child without a license" ever answered?
 
Objective-J said:
"America" wont be sterilizing anybody in mass numbers by force anytime soon, no need to. Fix whats broken you dont punish the people and strip their rights and freedoms thats dumb and broken logic.

Also was the question "what is the punishment for have a child without a license" ever answered?
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe so. There could be no practical or sensible punishment for getting pregnant without a license. In that sense, a license for having children would only work if we were able to somehow reversibly sterilize all new children at birth and reverse the procedure once they obtained the license. This too is at least impractical. That was why I went straight for what makes the most sense, which is to offer people who definitely should not be having children in their current state a reward for taking the steps that guarantee pregnancy prevention.
 
Neomalthusian said:
No, I don't believe so. There could be no practical or sensible punishment for getting pregnant without a license. In that sense, a license for having children would only work if we were able to somehow reversibly sterilize all new children at birth and reverse the procedure once they obtained the license. This too is at least impractical. That was why I went straight for what makes the most sense, which is to offer people who definitely should not be having children in their current state a reward for taking the steps that guarantee pregnancy prevention.
Click to expand...

What reward and what steps would they be taking?
 
Neomalthusian said:
I said you were taking it too personally, not too seriously. But since this topic is difficult for you to think about outside the context of your own family... I'll pose a serious question: Whose rights should prevail: your brother's right to reproduce despite his inability to raise a child, or the would-be child's rights to have its needs met?

I'm not simply arguing some people should get snipped because I arbitrarily enjoy controlling people. I'm suggesting that a parent's right to reproduce should be weighed against its baby's right to have its needs met. If it's demonstrable beyond any doubt that a person can't meet its own child's needs, it logically follows that the person should not become a parent.



You and others continue to distract from the fact that reproduction results in a new life that also has rights. It is unjust to all parties involved to guard reproductive rights as sacrosanct even when reproduction results in bad things for everyone: a child whose needs are neglected, the parent who feels even worse off after it's removed from the home and placed into state custody, and everyone else in society who pays for the costs associated with this intervention. We have methods for intervention which are too little too late in many cases. It's time to get a little more serious about prevention.
Click to expand...

You're goddamm right I am going to be talking about my family, my friends, my colleagues, the people I work for and try to help. You're so sick and twisted from reality that you don't want an actual human face to be put on public policy. This affects real people, and it doesn't affect them in small ways, it affects them as human beings. You still insist on insulting those people and yet announce your innocence in the process. Don't you dare tell me to be detached from such arguments. As the disabled, we've earned the right to protest this evil policy inflicted upon us for generations. The other group victims of sterilization practices of the 20th century have earned the right to speak out. It's such a black mark upon society that we are trying to figure out how to properly apologize for it, and you insist on going forward with bringing it back.
 
Neomalthusian said:
See post #8.
Click to expand...

yeah im not on board with that.

The long term BC(depending on how long of a term) would be ok but not the sterilization. Im shocked its legal and wont be surprised if its not for long.
 
Fiddytree said:
You're goddamm right I am going to be talking about my family, my friends, my colleagues, the people I work for and try to help. You're so sick and twisted from reality that you don't want an actual human face to be put on public policy. This affects real people, and it doesn't affect them in small ways, it affects them as human beings. You still insist on insulting those people and yet announce your innocence in the process. Don't you dare tell me to be detached from such arguments. As the disabled, we've earned the right to protest this evil policy inflicted upon us for generations. The other group victims of sterilization practices of the 20th century have earned the right to speak out. It's such a black mark upon society that we are trying to figure out how to properly apologize for it, and you insist on going forward with bringing it back.
Click to expand...

If you're too angry to be able to discuss the topic, then there's little point in continuing to try to.

I do put a human face on this discussion, by the way, which is the face that others keep ignoring:

FAS%20Facefini.jpg
 
Neomalthusian said:
If you're too angry to be able to discuss the topic, then there's little point in continuing to try to.

I do put a human face on this discussion, by the way, which is the face that others keep ignoring:

FAS%20Facefini.jpg
Click to expand...


 
Fiddytree said:
Funny how solipsism comes through in their thoughts, isn't it? So long as it is their smaller rights, then it must be fought tooth and nail, but someone else's larger, more important rights, mankind ought to become monsters. You'll never see a group more dedicated to fight against anti-piracy efforts, gun control, or progressive taxation, but you can't bet that they will think you should be permitted to ever have children. Thankfully, there are at least some who have participated that had seen through the evil this would unleash.
Click to expand...

I think he admitted his stance is not a libertarian stance.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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...



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).



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.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you want from me on this. You know the answer. They call the shots. I called the practice of paying desperate people for their fertility immoral, not illegal.


Gina said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is the quoted text from which this stemmed. Your belief system does not answer that question/challenge.

We can leave it at that.
 
DA60 said:
What if a teenager turns 18 while her parents/guardian are on welfare...does he/she have to get sterilized?
Click to expand...

Does she have a child of her own and collecting services for herself and her child? If not, then no. BTW, I'm talking about long-term BC now because sterilization is too permanent.

And if so - what if a daughter moves out and then moves back in with her parents who is on welfare? Does she have to be sterilized before she sets foot in the door? Can she stay the weekend? A week? A month?
Click to expand...

Again, this is about the person who has an open claim receiving welfare benefits with at least one child. The child of someone collecting would not count because it is not "her" claim.

How long can the offspring visit their welfare parent before the state demands they become sterilized?
Click to expand...

:roll:


And if there is a time limit - what is to stop the child from living with the parents until the limit is reached, move out and then move back again to start the time limit all over again? This could conceivably go on for years.
Click to expand...

Again, refer to above. The long-term BC would only apply to the person who is claiming benefits for themselves and their child/children.


You could have a deal between two families. The offspring live with their parents until the time limit is up - then the families switch children during the waiting period. And then they switch back and start the time limit all over again.
Click to expand...

Lol! What?

And how are you going to have the government check the millions of families to make sure they are complying with the time limits?
it will cost tens of millions of dollars to watch over ALL these families.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "time limits." Regular visits to a physician to ensure compliance with long-term BC, which anyone on birth control is supposed to do anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Gina said:
I don't know what you want from me on this. You know the answer. They call the shots. I called the practice of paying desperate people for their fertility immoral, not illegal.
Click to expand...

What's immoral is continuing to have children that you cannot afford to support and to rely on others (or FORCE others and strangers) to support your family. Not only is it immoral to do that to other people, but it is immoral to do it to your own family too. It is absolutely disgusting behavior.
 
ChrisL said:
Does she have a child of her own and collecting services for herself and her child? If not, then no. BTW, I'm talking about long-term BC now because sterilization is too permanent.



Again, this is about the person who has an open claim receiving welfare benefits with at least one child. The child of someone collecting would not count because it is not "her" claim.



:roll:




Again, refer to above. The long-term BC would only apply to the person who is claiming benefits for themselves and their child/children.




Lol! What?



Not sure what you mean by "time limits." Regular visits to a physician to ensure compliance with long-term BC, which anyone on birth control is supposed to do anyway.
Click to expand...

Theres a place that does something like this its called China.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
What's immoral is continuing to have children that you cannot afford to support and to rely on others (or FORCE others and strangers) to support your family. Not only is it immoral to do that to other people, but it is immoral to do it to your own family too. It is absolutely disgusting behavior.
Click to expand...

SO then your solution is to impose a authoritarian Government?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
SO then your solution is to impose a authoritarian Government?
Click to expand...

It's NOT authoritarian to expect people to practice common sense and use birth control when they cannot afford to support the children that they already have, or themselves for that matter. It is simply common sense to prevent people who cannot support their own from having anymore until they CAN support them. It is just CRAZY for the state to provide for someone and to allow them to continue to have children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom