• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Very true and the government has no business stopping sound mind consenting adults from having sex

NONE

yes BC is a simple solution that must be CHOSEN
 
Objective-J said:
1.) nope it fails the logic test once we are talking about unsound minded people :shrug: thats illogical
Click to expand...

Every state in the country protects children from abuse. Less than half the states extend protections to fetuses, even though that is perhaps the most critical period of development. I think all states should. Some ideas discussed in this thread are ways to do it (and do it well).

2.) and your way neglects the responsibility to not take advantage of unsound minded people :shrug: sorry theres others ways
Click to expand...

To stop a woman who is set on doing things that will irreparably damage her fetus from doing so, one or more of her rights/liberties must be suspended or terminated. So what are these other ways that would be effective in assuring no further harm to the fetus?
 
Neomalthusian said:
1.)Every state in the country protects children from abuse. Less than half the states protect fetuses from abuse. I think all states should. The ideas discussed in this thread are ways to do it (and do it well).



2.)To stop a woman who is set on doing things that will irreparably damage her fetus from doing so, one or more of her rights/liberties must be suspended or terminated. So what are these "other ways" that would be effective in assuring no further harm to the fetus?
Click to expand...

1.) thats great you feel that way, entrapping unsound mind adults is not one of them, please stay on topic lol
also ZEFs involve TWO people, children do not.

Protecting a ZEF could very well endanger a woman so that type of blanket thinking is illogical in reality. Its a VERY grey area

2.) depending on what "damage" to the fetus you are talking about there are none that id be willing to let this country pursue that i know of, nor would i want it to pursue it.

But again it depends on what you are referring to specifically.
 
DA60 said:
But the 18 year old could still live under the parents welfare paid for roof for free.
Click to expand...

What is your point here? If she is still living under her parents welfare, then she isn't collecting it herself. Therefore, she is not using any additional taxpayer monies and does NOT have her own claim to welfare benefits. :confused:

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.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how this point goes against long-term birth control. Welfare fraud happens. No plan would be perfect.

Plus, you are going to have to have government representatives physically monitor each family...which will cost tens of millions of dollars....at least.
Click to expand...

Good Lord! I already said that when someone applies for benefits for a child or children, that is when the sign a form to agree to implantation of a long-term birth control method (the pill would probably be least preferable option), have the device implanted and see a physician on a regular basis to ensure compliance. Anyone who is on birth control is supposed to be under the care of a physician anyway, so that is nothing out of the ordinary.


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 never having to be sterilized.
Click to expand...

Then the children become her family's issue and not the state or the taxpayer since she has not opened her own claim. Again, long-term birth control, NOT sterilization. There is a BIG difference there.


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.
Click to expand...

OMG!

And these are just loopholes I have thoughts off of the top of my head. I guarantee the masses will think of dozens more. I guarantee you, it will end up costing the government more money then it pays now.
Click to expand...

These same loop holes exist 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.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about sterilization, then you are not addressing me. Like I've said about a billion times I'm talking about LONG-TERM BIRTH CONTROL.

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

This is just silliness. Having a person who cannot afford to have children use birth control is just plain old common sense. You must know this.
Click to expand...
 
Objective-J said:
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
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there is nothing in the Constitution about collecting taxpayer monies to support your family.
 
ChrisL said:
Sorry, but there is nothing in the Constitution about collecting taxpayer monies to support your family.
Click to expand...

im sorry can you point to where i said there was?

nothing like skirting what i said ;)
 
Objective-J said:
1.) thats great you feel that way, entrapping unsound mind adults is not one of them, please stay on topic lol
also ZEFs involve TWO people, children do not.
Click to expand...

The act of child abuse involves two people, the child and the abuser. The act of fetal abuse involves two "people," the fetus and the abuser.

2.) depending on what "damage" to the fetus you are talking about there are none that id be willing to let this country pursue that i know of, nor would i want it to pursue it.

But again it depends on what you are referring to specifically.
Click to expand...

Hm, let me think, alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, opioids, hallucinogens, inhalants, nicotine, benzodiazepines, cocaine... you advise that women abusing these never be restricted in their liberties in order to protect the fetus they're carrying from further abuse?

And you're calling me illogical?
 
Objective-J said:
im sorry can you point to where i said there was?

nothing like skirting what i said ;)
Click to expand...

Well, it's an entirely different situation then, isn't it? When someone is costing everyone else money and bringing a child into a bad situation and making a bad situation worse, and they are too stupid (or whatever) to use birth control on their own, I don't see a problem with having that be a stipulation to collecting taxpayer monies, especially since collecting welfare is NOT a constitutional right.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, birth control. That's just awful and so inconvenient. :roll:
Click to expand...

I have nothing against birth control. I do however have a problem with forced birth control. My point was actually reflecting on the warnings sounded when all of this got started that when the government paid the bills they called the shots and this reaches into everything and reaches far beyond just the services rendered. As we have seen in this country and in other countries around the world this warning has proven itself over and over again to have merit behind it. This topic is actually a wonderful example of just that is all.
 
Henrin said:
I have nothing against birth control. I do however have a problem with forced birth control. My point was actually reflecting on the warnings sounded when all of this got started that when the government paid the bills they called the shots and this reaches into everything and reaches far beyond just the services rendered. As we have seen in this country and in other countries around the world this warning has proven itself over and over again to have merit behind it. This topic is actually a wonderful example of just that is all.
Click to expand...

It's not forced. If you don't want to use birth control, then don't collect services. If you go hungry, you have nobody to blame but yourself for being a dumbass.
 
Neomalthusian said:
1.)The act of child abuse involves two people, the child and the abuser. The act of fetal abuse involves two "people," the fetus and the abuser.



2.)Hm, let me think, alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, opioids, hallucinogens, inhalants, nicotine, benzodiazepines, cocaine... you advise that women abusing these never be restricted in their liberties in order to protect the fetus they're carrying from further abuse?

And you're calling me illogical?
Click to expand...

1.) wrong it involves a victim and a assailant that are SEPARATE

trying to legislate something for the woman or the zef makes the LAW make one of the other a victum. TOTALLY different.

2.) again can you point ot where i asid its ok to abuse frugs while pregnant? LMAO

thats right i didnt, just another thing you are making up, another appeal to emotion because you cant logically do anything else

what i DID say is that unsound mind people shouldnt be entrapped, again please stay on topic and dont randomly make things up lol

CONTRACTS can be voided and illegal if it can be proven one party was entrapped or not of sound mind and you want permanent medical procedures to take place, YES thats illogical
 
It's NOT against any constitutional rights since collecting taxpayer dollars to support your family is NOT a right.
 
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...

The child is not forced into a life of poverty, but just a greater chance of not being able to pull out of it.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, it's an entirely different situation then, isn't it? When someone is costing everyone else money and bringing a child into a bad situation and making a bad situation worse, and they are too stupid (or whatever) to use birth control on their own, I don't see a problem with having that be a stipulation to collecting taxpayer monies, especially since collecting welfare is NOT a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

then you just answered your own question then, fight for welfare or child care or tax reform then you dont step all of over the constitution and rape someone of their personal freedom, liberties and rights.
 
ChrisL said:
It's not forced. If you don't want to use birth control, then don't collect services. If you go hungry, you have nobody to blame but yourself for being a dumbass.
Click to expand...

And right there is a the reasoning offered for whatever it might be. If the person is collecting services somehow people think its fine to do whatever the state wants with them.
 
ChrisL said:
DA60 said:
What is your point here? If she is still living under her parents welfare, then she isn't collecting it herself. Therefore, she is not using any additional taxpayer monies and does NOT have her own claim to welfare benefits. :confused:



I don't understand how this point goes against long-term birth control. Welfare fraud happens. No plan would be perfect.



Good Lord! I already said that when someone applies for benefits for a child or children, that is when the sign a form to agree to implantation of a long-term birth control method (the pill would probably be least preferable option), have the device implanted and see a physician on a regular basis to ensure compliance. Anyone who is on birth control is supposed to be under the care of a physician anyway, so that is nothing out of the ordinary.




Then the children become her family's issue and not the state or the taxpayer since she has not opened her own claim. Again, long-term birth control, NOT sterilization. There is a BIG difference there.




OMG!



These same loop holes exist NOW.



If you're talking about sterilization, then you are not addressing me. Like I've said about a billion times I'm talking about LONG-TERM BIRTH CONTROL.



This is just silliness. Having a person who cannot afford to have children use birth control is just plain old common sense. You must know this.
Click to expand...

I am NOT talking about long-term birth control.
I am talking about the law you seem to agree with that the state can sterilize anyone that wants welfare.
I could care less about the birth rate in this context.
I care about what is right and wrong.
And welfare sterilization IS wrong.


And you are not understanding my points.

My point is that a grandparent (who would not need to be sterilized or maybe already is) could become the legal guardian of all the children that their children and grandchildren have. That way they could claim welfare for themselves AND for their dependents.

Meanwhile, the parents of these children could live for free in their parents/grandparents home(claiming they were renting a room or something - which they were not) that the state pays for.
Yes, they would have to look after other expenses - but the state would pay their rent.
And they could have as many children as they wanted (provided they did not apply for selfare) and simply turn over custody to their grandparents who can raise them at the state's expense - all without ANY of them having to be sterilized.


Imo, there is no way this program would either save the government money OR significantly lower the long term birth rate among the poor.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
I am NOT talking about long-term birth control.
I am talking about the law you seem to agree with that the state can sterilize anyone that wants welfare.
I did not direct my question at you - you just answered it.


And you are not understanding my points.

My point is that a grandparent (who would not need to be sterilized or maybe already is) could become the legal guardian of all the children that their children and grandchildren have. That way they could claim welfare for themselves AND for their dependents.

Meanwhile, the parents of these children could live for free in their parents/grandparents home(claiming they were renting a room or something - which they were not) that the state pays for.
Yes, they would have to look after other expenses - but the state would pay their rent.
And they could have as many children as they wanted and simply turn over custody to their grandparents who can raise them at the state's expense - all without ANY of them having to be sterilized.
Click to expand...

Okay, well I'm NOT referring to sterilization. I'm referring to long-term birth control.

As far as the rest of your argument, that stuff happens NOW. No plan is going to be completely foolproof. It most certainly would cut down on the problems though.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) wrong it involves a victim and a assailant that are SEPARATE

trying to legislate something for the woman or the zef makes the LAW make one of the other a victum. TOTALLY different.
Click to expand...

Whatever it is you think you're arguing, I am advocating that, because prenatal exposure to harmful substances causes irreparable brain damage, fetuses should be afforded protections from maternal substance abuse under states' child abuse laws.

2.) again can you point ot where i asid its ok to abuse frugs while pregnant? LMAO

thats right i didnt, just another thing you are making up,
Click to expand...

You are completely unable to comprehend my posts, apparently. I never suggested "you think it's okay," what I'm addressing is that you appear to be insisting that nothing be done to intervene when it's happening, whether it's "okay" or not according to you. It would be similar to saying "I think abusing children is wrong, but we should leave the abusers alone out of respect for the abuser's rights."

what i DID say is that unsound mind people shouldnt be entrapped, again please stay on topic and dont randomly make things up lol

CONTRACTS can be voided and illegal if it can be proven one party was entrapped or not of sound mind and you want permanent medical procedures to take place, YES thats illogical
Click to expand...

I've reiterated my position countless times in this thread and you're still having trouble figuring it out, apparently. My position is that fetuses should be protected from their mothers' substance abuse and some sort of intervention and liberty restriction/suspension is warranted to prevent further permanent brain damage to the babies addict mothers are carrying.

There is nothing whatsoever "illogical" about that. You just don't agree with it, for some bizarre and unsubstantiated reason or another.
 
ChrisL said:
It's NOT against any constitutional rights since collecting taxpayer dollars to support your family is NOT a right.
Click to expand...
Equal protection anyone? Wage discrimination? Bueller?
 
I can also admit that I am wary about the government being involved in even that minor amount, but I also don't see it as being the "nightmarish" situation that others describe when simply prescribing birth control.

I think that the "people have the right to have as many children as they want, to bring children into a bad situation and to force others to pay for them through taxpayer money" or that somehow use of birth control when receiving public assistance is an "assault" on someone is a LAME argument against.
 
a351 said:
Equal protection anyone? Wage discrimination? Bueller?
Click to expand...

Yes, equal protection. We are protecting them and ourselves and their future children.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes on a simplistic level that sounds logical, but in reality it isnt that simple. First of all if the person has a religious reason for not taking birth control then what? And say that the person took the birth long term birth control method and it had a adverse effect on their health? So after all the medical needed to hopefully fix that new problem or perhaps they needed no extra care but the method just didnt go over well for whatever reason what are you suggesting next? Or perhaps they went ahead and took the long term birth control and were happy with getting that paid for? What did you fix?

So where would your logic end? Should the Government also put conditions on other public benefits? Should we require the military to take long term birth control?
 
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...

Neither did I. Quite surprising.

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...

Your answer to this is to uniformly sterilize all welfare recipients? You don't find that disgusting?
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, well I'm NOT referring to sterilization. I'm referring to long-term birth control.

As far as the rest of your argument, that stuff happens NOW. No plan is going to be completely foolproof. It most certainly would cut down on the problems though.
Click to expand...

Completely foolproof?

As I have pointed out. In theory - a family could have baby after baby, turn official custody (in name only) over to a grandparent, have the state pay to raise the children and provide free room for everyone. All without having to be sterilized.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom