• 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
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...

Well, then, why can the child not stay with the parent indefinitely and keep claiming benefits through her parents extra welfare income for having dependents?

This would allow her to receive (indirectly) welfare benefits as an adult without having to be sterilized - would it not (since she is technically a dependent)? At least until she wanted to have children.


Also, what happens if a 14 year old child of a welfare parent had a baby? Would she have to be sterilized to remain with her parent?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
ChrisL said:
Theres a place that does something like this its called China.
Click to expand...

No, I think you know there is a BIG difference. China's laws are nationwide and apply to everyone and anyone. In this scenario, it would only be applied to those who have proven that they cannot support themselves or their child/children and who are collecting services at the expense of the taxpayers and government.
Click to expand...
 
Objective-J said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that more states don't consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be criminal child abuse.

STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF: Substance Abuse During Pregnancy

Whereas some find the practice of offering money for sterilization (even by private citizens) to be immoral, I wonder how they rank this immorality compared to drug abuse during pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Well, then, why can the child not stay with the parent indefinitely and keep claiming benefits through her parents extra welfare income for having dependents? This would allow her to receive (indirectly) welfare benefits as an adult without having to be sterilized - would it not? At least until she wanted to have children.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question here. You cannot collect welfare for adult children. They are independent from their parents once they are an adult - a completely separate entity and responsible for their own lives.

Also, what happens if a 14 year old child of a welfare parent had a baby? Would she have to be sterilized to remain with her parent?
Click to expand...

Again, I told you that I'm talking about long-term birth control. That 14-year-old would be considered a separate entity from her parents as well. If you are that age and you become a parent, you are eligible to collect welfare only if you have documentation that you buy and prepare your own food separately from your parents and that you pay some kind of room and board or rent to stay with them. Otherwise, the under-aged mother and her child would be considered part of the parent's family. That is how it works now, and I see no reason for that to change.

I never said it was a "perfect" plan. I said it would help out.
 
I see people are pushing for what people warned against a century ago when considering the welfare state. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Common sense cannot be legislated or forced on the population.
 
It's odd how some people consider a pregnancy to be an "assault" on their bodies and also consider birth control to be an "assault" on their bodies. What the hell?
 
ChrisL said:
No, I think you know there is a BIG difference. China's laws are nationwide and apply to everyone and anyone. In this scenario, it would only be applied to those who have proven that they cannot support themselves or their child/children and who are collecting services at the expense of the taxpayers and government.
Click to expand...

Are these people that you are talking about breaking some kind of law?
 
Neomalthusian said:
I'm shocked that more states don't consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be criminal child abuse.

STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SADP.pdfSubstance Abuse During Pregnancy

Whereas some find the practice of offering money for sterilization (even by private citizens) to be immoral, I wonder how they rank this immorality compared to drug abuse during pregnancy.
Click to expand...

I agree with that too what your point? What does that have to do with anything or why is it relevant to what i said?

theres nothing logical about offering addicts and unsound mind people money for medical procedure that is permanent :shrug:

please list the people here that think its ok to abuse drugs while pregnant or were you just appealing to emotion ;)
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Common sense cannot be legislated or forced on the population.
Click to expand...

I don't see why it can't be if someone is collecting taxpayer monies to support children. Long-term birth control is a simple solution that normally has little if any complications.

Like I specified earlier, if there were any kind of complications, the birth control can be stopped because these people would be under the care of a physician like anyone else who takes birth control.

It's simple. If you can't support your children and yourself, and you want public aid, then use birth control so that you aren't a burden on society and so that we can limit the suffering of children.
 
ChrisL said:
It's odd how some people consider a pregnancy to be an "assault" on their bodies and also consider birth control to be an "assault" on their bodies. What the hell?
Click to expand...

i think people are bothered by "sterilization" being offered to unsound people by entrapping them with money

but you have it wrong, what most people think that "ASSAULT" is, is the FORCE not the pregnancy or the BC themselves
 
Henrin said:
I see people are pushing for what people warned against a century ago when considering the welfare state. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, birth control. That's just awful and so inconvenient. :roll:
 
Objective-J said:
I agree with that too what your point? What does that have to do with anything or why is it relevant to what i said?

theres nothing logical about offering addicts and unsound mind people money for medical procedure that is permanent :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's absolutely logical. As I said in my first post on this thread, the issue is that it's controversial and believed to be an infringement on liberty. What I said that you bolded is relevant because it shows that only a minority of states consider fetuses to have rights to be protected against their impaired mother's substance abuse behaviors. This indicates to me that the fixation is on the mother even to the detriment of the unborn baby.

please list the people here that think its ok to abuse drugs while pregnant or were you just appealing to emotion ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anyone considers it OK, what I'm suggesting is that they're neglecting the responsibility we have to protect fetuses from their own abusive mothers. And I'm not even one of your standard "pro-life" folks. I'm just anti-fetal-abuse.
 
Objective-J said:
i think people are bothered by "sterilization" being offered to unsound people by entrapping them with money

but you have it wrong, what most people think that "ASSAULT" is, is the FORCE not the pregnancy or the BC themselves
Click to expand...

Well, it's also FORCE when we have to pay to support these people and their terrible choices, not to mention assault on the poor children who don't have any choices in the matter.
 
Neomalthusian said:
1.)It's absolutely logical. As I said in my first post on this thread, the issue is that it's controversial and believed to be an infringement on liberty. What I said that you bolded is relevant because it shows that only a minority of states consider fetuses to have rights to be protected against their impaired mother's substance abuse behaviors. This indicates to me that the fixation is on the mother even to the detriment of the unborn baby.



2.)I'm not suggesting anyone considers it OK, what I'm suggesting is that they're neglecting the responsibility we have to protect fetuses from their own abusive mothers.
Click to expand...

1.) nope it fails the logic test once we are talking about unsound minded people :shrug:
thats illogical

2.) and your way neglects the responsibility to not take advantage of unsound minded people :shrug: sorry theres others ways
 
ChrisL said:
Well, it's also FORCE when we have to pay to support these people and their terrible choices, not to mention assault on the poor children who don't have any choices in the matter.
Click to expand...

Why is it better to force children into a life of poverty than to force a mom to take birth control?
 
Henrin said:
I think he admitted his stance is not a libertarian stance.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not. I was indicting those participating in the forum who labeled themselves as such. Libertarianism would be an expected ally in the cause of anti-eugenics, but Henrin, on this forum (which does not mean that folks like Ikari, yourself, and others are not represented for rightful dissent against such policies), I have actually had far more confrontations with self-professed libertarians on these matters than almost any other group (with a small number of progressives and leftists along the way). Again, libertarians would be overwhelming potential allies in this one public policy square, but on this forum, I have run into far too many libertarians that bad mouth people with disabilities-wanting them to not exist, calling them literally less than human, wanting sterilization, and so forth.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, it's also FORCE when we have to pay to support these people and their terrible choices, not to mention assault on the poor children who don't have any choices in the matter.
Click to expand...

taxes arent going anywhere so theres no sense of worrying about that

if you are worried about the poor children then you shouldnt be worried about the taxes that might/could help them
 
ChrisL said:
Why is it better to force children into a life of poverty than to force a mom to take birth control?
Click to expand...

nobody is saying that but how far are you willing to go to destroy americans freedons, rights and liberties?

Id rather reform healthcare, foster-care and child care before i force medical procedure or meds on a person against their will, no thanks
 
Objective-J said:
taxes arent going anywhere so theres no sense of worrying about that

if you are worried about the poor children then you shouldnt be worried about the taxes that might/could help them
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make any sense. There is nothing wrong with mandatory birth control for those who are too irresponsible to use it on their own and who keep having children that they cannot afford. THAT is abuse.
 
Objective-J said:
nobody is saying that but how far are you willing to go to destroy americans freedons, rights and liberties?

Id rather reform healthcare, foster-care and child care before i force medical procedure or meds on a person against their will, no thanks
Click to expand...

None of that stops people from having sex, having babies or making bad decisions. Birth control is one simple measure that could prevent a lot of misery.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't understand your question here. You cannot collect welfare for adult children. They are independent from their parents once they are an adult - a completely separate entity and responsible for their own lives.
Click to expand...
But the 18 year old could still live under the parents welfare paid for roof for free.
Forget the seperate food preparation and rent paid - that would be ridiculously easy to fake. Just put a hot plate in your bedroom and give the parents cash each month - which the parents turn around and give back under the table.
Plus, you are going to have to have government representatives physically monitor each family...which will cost tens of millions of dollars....at least.

Again, I told you that I'm talking about long-term birth control. That 14-year-old would be considered a separate entity from her parents as well. If you are that age and you become a parent, you are eligible to collect welfare only if you have documentation that you buy and prepare your own food separately from your parents and that you pay some kind of room and board or rent to stay with them. Otherwise, the under-aged mother and her child would be considered part of the parent's family. That is how it works now, and I see no reason for that to change.

I never said it was a "perfect" plan. I said it would help out.
Click to expand...

So, then a teenaged girl could have several children before she was 18 and still de classified as a dependent of her parents - all a okay according to the state.
And then this young mother could give up custody of her children to her parents and they could raise them at state cost as dependents. Plus, the young mother could live for free at home and if she gets a cheap job to pay for food/clothing/bus pass - she could have her children raised by the state - all without ever having to be sterilized.


Plus, the government will have to pay for tens of millions of sterilizations for eligible men and women (these people are broke - they cannot afford it). Which could run into 10's of billions of dollars.
And, every lower class person who wants to be sterilized (like a man wanting a vasectomy) can now get it done for free from the governemnt - even if they have zero intention of applying for welfare (as long as they qualify for welfare). Again, more billions of dollars.


And these are just loopholes I have thought off of the top of my head.

Surely the masses will think of dozens more.

I guarantee you, it will end up costing the government more money then it pays now.


Plus, this sterilization program will incite gigantic resentment amongst the poor - who will gladly band together to do whatever they have to to fleece the system.

The more government tries to clamp down on people - the more it unites the people in a common cause against the government.



Finally, over 50% of Americans receive some kind of government assistance. There are over 44 million on food stamps alone.

There is NO WAY this will ever pass Congress. And there is no chance a POTUS would support it - he/she's party would lose the next election for certain.
 
Last edited:
I read a story once about a mother who had to fight in court and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to have her adult mentally disabled daughter sterilized because she kept getting pregnant and leaving the children in the care of the mother, who was going broke trying to care for all of these kids (in addition to the court costs). God knows who the fathers were because that information was never known. Yet there were people who wanted to preserve this woman's right to continue to have children that she obviously was not mentally or financially capable of caring for.

Long-term injection type of birth control could have solved this problem; no sterilization required. The only thing required is to see a physician every few months or so.
 
ChrisL said:
That doesn't even make any sense. There is nothing wrong with mandatory birth control for those who are too irresponsible to use it on their own and who keep having children that they cannot afford. THAT is abuse.
Click to expand...

nothing wrong with it if you want to rip up the constitution and step all over peoples rights, freedoms and liberties LOL

you cant fore medicine and medical procedures on people thats insane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom