• 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
Neomalthusian said:
1.)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.)You are completely unable to comprehend my posts, apparently. I never suggested "you think it's okay," what I'm addressing is that you apparently are insisting nothing be done to intervene when it's happening. It would be similar to saying "I think abusing children is wrong, but we should leave the abusers alone out of respect for their rights."



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.
Click to expand...

1.) i know what i was arguing you seemed to drift and drift further way, i said pages ago, using drugs while prgenant is wrong, that doesnt translate into offering unsound mind people sterilization though. They are not the same.

2.) can only go by what you say, write more clear :shrug:
wrong again, im fine with steps being taken but NOT money offers to addicts. Nothing has changed, only the stuff you wrongly assume.

3.) i understand it fine, Im fine with punishing pregnant women who abuse drugs, offering money to addicts for sterilization is 100% illogical as i already factually substantiated
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, equal protection. We are protecting them and ourselves and their future children.
Click to expand...
LOL! What a cornball! Equal protection in this case would pertain to disallowing the poor to procreate while leaving any above a certain income skirt around without a second thought. "Class Warfare" as dittoheads often say.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) i know what i was arguing you seemed to drift and drift further way, i said pages ago, using drugs while prgenant is wrong, that doesnt translate itno offering unsound mind people sterilization though. They are not the same.

2.) can only go by what you say, write more clear :shrug: (says the guy with no punctuation)
wrong again, im fine with steps being taken but NOT money offers...
Click to expand...

So now you're fine with "steps being taken." What "steps being taken" are you fine with that will prevent further harm to the addict mother's fetus?

Here's what you said last time:


Objective-J said:
Neomalthusian said:
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...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That's actually a good point. I haven't thought of that angle yet. But I could still say that they are using public assistance; and WE are not obligated to support them on their terms. WE do it out of the kindness of our hearts and sympathy and because we want a healthy society. There is nothing wrong with stipulations in order to receive the benefits IMO.

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?
Click to expand...

That can happen to anyone who takes birth control, and they would be under the care of a physician. Most of the time, complications are relatively minor. Serious complications are relatively rare. If there are complications, there are MANY methods to choose from. If the rare instance should occur where there are no viable birth control options, exceptions could be made, and a box of condoms wouldn't hurt.


Or perhaps they went ahead and took the long term birth control and were happy with getting that paid for? What did you fix?
Click to expand...

So, then everybody's happy. What's the problem? The person is not bringing more children into a bad situation and is not using additional public assistance.

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?
Click to expand...

The military WORKS to earn their money. They give back in a BIG way. That is not even remotely comparable. :shock:
Click to expand...
 
a351 said:
LOL! What a cornball! Equal protection in this case would pertain to disallowing the poor to procreate while leaving any above a certain income skirt around without a second thought. "Class Warfare" as dittoheads often say.
Click to expand...

No, there are plenty of "poor" people who don't collect welfare. As if requiring birth control is "class warfare." Give me a break.
 
a351 said:
LOL! What a cornball! Equal protection in this case would pertain to disallowing the poor to procreate while leaving any above a certain income skirt around without a second thought. "Class Warfare" as dittoheads often say.
Click to expand...

You can have as many children as you like as long as you don't expect anyone else to support them, or are you implying that we should be expected to support everyone's children?
 
Gina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am assuming too much. You clearly do not comprehend the definition of force. If someone already has children they cannot afford, requiring that they get their tubes tied before they receive more funding is hardly "fascist" as some people seem to believe.

Gina said:
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.
Click to expand...

These government tit suckers are draining the coffers dry right along with the corporate bail outs and illegal wars. The government needs to be downsized. And people apparently need incentive to do what even animals manage: maintain their own family.

Gina said:
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.
Click to expand...

People should not be free to breed while expecting a hand out.

Gina said:
No, and I didn't say providing and care for the children was punishment. Requiring surgical procedures is though.
Click to expand...

It is not punitive. Most of these people would be better off with less children anyhow, not to mention the savings for everyone else.


Gina said:
I guess the idea is to make them pay as painfully and as egregiously as possible.
Click to expand...

:roll: Poor strategy. Hyperbole adds nothing to your argument.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's all I was asking you. What "steps being taken" are you fine with that will prevent further harm to the addict mother's fetus?
Click to expand...

as i already answered POSTS ago, besides making drug abuse illegal while pregnant i said

" 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...

and my answer was about protection period not just from addicts

there are no forced medical or medicine treatments id support
 
Objective-J said:
as i already answered POSTS ago, besides making drug abuse illegal while pregnant i said
" 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...

and my answer was about protection period not just from addicts

there are no forced medical or medicine treatments id support
Click to expand...

Can you please be a little more specific? Drug possession is generally already illegal. What actual steps would be taken to prevent an addict mother from further damaging her fetus? Jail? Involuntary commitment?

It's like pulling teeth here.
 
Objective-J said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is how this works sadly. Once they collect or even attempt to collect their rights and liberties are forfeit. Again, this has been shown many times over and this is really no different. It a bit more alarming perhaps, sure, but you will notice it's really just more of the same old thing. Welfare has always been a game of the amount of strings attached to it.
 
Last edited:
Another angle to look at it from is to ask yourself what is the MAIN cause of crime in our country? Poverty. Where do you think gang members who are shooting and killing each other and other innocent people come from? Why on earth wouldn't we do everything in our power to discourage that cycle and to NOT enable it to continue.
 
ChrisL said:
No, there are plenty of "poor" people who don't collect welfare. As if requiring birth control is "class warfare." Give me a break.
Click to expand...
The proposals being tossed about in this thread are based around said individual's participation in supplementary assistance programs, all of which have designated income requirements. Arbitrarily restricting the reproductive rights of only those with incomes that fall below that threshold is a class based approach, and a crude one at that.
 
Henrin said:
That is how this works sadly. Once they collect or even attempt to collect their rights and liberties are forfeit. Again, this has been shown many times over and this is really no different. It a bit more alarming perhaps, sure, but you will notice it's really just more of the same old thing.
Click to expand...

There is no "right" to have other people pay for your children, and nobody is being denied the "right" to have a child. They ARE not forced to take public assistance of course.
 
What about kids divorcing bad parents... I mean I know some do, but not near enough.
 
Alyssa said:
With government provided security, we forfeit liberty.
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, the only liberties being tossed about as ripe for removal have precisely nothing to do with security.
 
a351 said:
The proposals being tossed about in this thread are based around said individual's participation in supplementary assistance programs, all of which have designated income requirements. Arbitrarily restricting the reproductive rights of only those with incomes that fall below that threshold is a class based approach, and a crude one at that.
Click to expand...

You're missing the entire point which is, if you can't afford children you need to do what you can to not having any(more). It's really a simple concept...
 
ChrisL said:
There is no "right" to have other people pay for your children, and nobody is being denied the "right" to have a child. They ARE not forced to take public assistance of course.
Click to expand...

Why do people think it's their god given right to receive welfare? What a pathetic mindset. It's an entire generation of entitlement hogs.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Can you please be a little more specific? Drug possession is generally already illegal. What actual steps would be taken to prevent an addict mother from further damaging her fetus? Jail? Involuntary commitment?

It's like pulling teeth here.
Click to expand...

didnt YOU say drug abuse while pregnant is NOT illegal in all states?
Well id support making it illegal in all states :shrug:

as far as PREVENTION i said probably none, its not pulling teeth you just arent getting the answer you want.
There are probably few things id support in prevention, not a legal path id want the government to take or be involved in.

You give suggestions and ill tell you if id support it cause i got nothing. Id support things later but not before probably in most cases.
 
Alyssa said:
Why do people think it's their god given right to receive welfare? What a pathetic mindset. It's an entire generation of entitlement hogs.
Click to expand...

We're actually working on the third generation...
 
Alyssa said:
These government tit suckers are draining the coffers dry right along with the corporate bail outs and illegal wars. The government needs to be downsized. And people apparently need incentive to do what even animals manage: maintain their own family.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that sterilizations, licenses, or birth control are actually incentivizing. It seems to me to just be getting the results you want from the start.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You can have as many children as you like as long as you don't expect anyone else to support them

or are you implying that we should be expected to support everyone's children?
Click to expand...
Should've stopped there. Expectations of the parents don't come into the picture at all.

I'm implying that your best course of action would be to contact your local congressman and urge him to tear down these safety nets you so detest. That's well within the law and slightly more practical than some of the suggestions tossed about here.
 
ChrisL said:
There is no "right" to have other people pay for your children, and nobody is being denied the "right" to have a child. They ARE not forced to take public assistance of course.
Click to expand...

I agree completely there is no right to welfare and as I have told you before I'm against the welfare state. However, people do have a right to make these kind of decisions on their body.
 
a351 said:
Strangely enough, the only liberties being tossed about as ripe for removal have precisely nothing to do with security.
Click to expand...

bzzzzzt.. wrong.

The security I'm referring to is food, shelter, and the right to be comfortable among other things. This is the mindset of 21st century America. Sit back and relax. Someone else will get it.

AlabamaPaul said:
You're missing the entire point which is, if you can't afford children you need to do what you can to not having any(more). It's really a simple concept...
Click to expand...

Apparently, it would be easier to teach a dog algorithms. The concept of budgeting money and having only the children one can afford is too difficult and unreasonable.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You're missing the entire point which is, if you can't afford children you need to do what you can to not having any(more). It's really a simple concept...
Click to expand...
Think you're giving yourself a bit too much credit here. Most who can tell their behind from a hole in the ground would advise not to have children you can't afford. The solution being prescribed is the clog in the pipes for most here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom