• 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!

Should society dissuade people from reproducing children they can't raise? How?

Should society dissuade incompetent people from producing children?

  • No, reproduction is sacrosanct, people have absolute freedom to reproduce and make others raise them

    Votes: 9 47.4%

  • Yes/no, mandatory reproductive control for only the most severely/permanently disabled

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Yes/no, offer money for sterilization and/or long-term birth control measures

    Votes: 5 26.3%

  • Yes/no, mandatory birth control and/or sterilization for active severe substance addicts

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Yes, require some sort of permit for having children

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Sort of, implement two-child policy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
N

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,821
Reaction score
3,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Try to suspend auto-outrage before answering and responding.

Every state has an administrative agency charged with temporarily suspending, and/or petitioning for extinguishment of, parental rights if those parents neglect their children's basic needs.

The act of producing a child generates a legal obligation to provide for its basic needs. Failure to do so can result in the extinguishment of parental rights. Therefore, a person who is fertile but otherwise has demonstrable inability to provide basic minimum care to the child is capable creating a financial and legal liability that it can transfer onto others without their consent.

Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?
 
Long story short, no. If you look at many of the great minds, the real geniuses, those who nudged scientific and societal progress, they were not all from educated/intelligent parents. Dumb parents can produce intelligent children, and smart parents can produce unintelligent children. Human rights to procreation should never be acquiesced into abstaining from having children. This is borderline eugenics, a theory that marginally improves the collective intelligence of humanity, while removing what actually makes us human in the process "I.E, morals".
 
Given the previous track-record of posts from you on this subject (cleverly coded into your poll options), I preemptively struck a stringent "no."
 
Neomalthusian said:
Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?
Click to expand...

Death Matches.
 
No, reproduction is sacrosanct, people have absolute freedom to reproduce and make others raise them

.... Given the choices, I proclaim this to be one of those threads where a 17 year old Libertarian thinks his understanding of Ayn Rand is some new accomplishment and he now seeks to show off to the pseudo-academic world of the interwebz.
 
I think people that have children that they can't financially support should be sterilized immediately and that child removed from their home
 
Rocketman said:
I think people that have children that they can't financially support should be sterilized immediately and that child removed from their home
Click to expand...
First, in an effort to save texts, read my signature. Second, do you have even the slightest idea what kind of psychological trauma that would be created by taking a child's parents, and butchering them would cause on the child? That's a great way to create a misanthropic terrorist that's bent on destroying the state that took away his most direct means of feeling love, affection, and purpose.
 
shlunka said:
First, in an effort to save texts, read my signature. Second, do you have even the slightest idea what kind of psychological trauma that would be created by taking a child's parents, and butchering them would cause on the child? That's a great way to create a misanthropic terrorist that's bent on destroying the state that took away his most direct means of feeling love, affection, and purpose.
Click to expand...

who said any thing about butchering the parents? Are you drunk?
 
I'll go with no just because the other choices are terrible.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Try to suspend auto-outrage before answering and responding.

Every state has an administrative agency charged with temporarily suspending, and/or petitioning for extinguishment of, parental rights if those parents neglect their children's basic needs.

The act of producing a child generates a legal obligation to provide for its basic needs. Failure to do so can result in the extinguishment of parental rights. Therefore, a person who is fertile but otherwise has demonstrable inability to provide basic minimum care to the child is capable creating a financial and legal liability that it can transfer onto others without their consent.

Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?
Click to expand...

I'll suspend my "auto-outrage" but I will note that I remember there was a time when society sterilized the mentally ill. I would hope that even if individual members of society haven't sufficiently evolved, at least society as a whole has.
 
Rocketman said:
who said any thing about butchering the parents? Are you drunk?
Click to expand...
Sterilized is often synonymous with killing. I misconstrued your post, whether due to its ambiguity or my ineptitude. I see now that you meant to make them incapable of birthing subsequent children, my apologies.
 
Imo, society should dissuade anyone from having children, who is not willing, able, or capable of rearing them well. It's pretty simple to do by not incentivizing them financially.
 
lizzie said:
Imo, society should dissuade anyone from having children, who is not willing, able, or capable of rearing them well. It's pretty simple to do by not incentivizing them financially.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment behind your position - problem is, it's always the child who suffers in the end.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate the sentiment behind your position - problem is, it's always the child who suffers in the end.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, however, if a parent doesn't have the capability of taking care of his/her children, do we really want more people being reared by parents who are incapable of love and nurturing? I personally believe that most parents would try their best, and take care of their children out of love, if there was no other choice.
 
I'm not going to argue about incompetence, that's an ill-defined term. I will say that people who cannot afford to provide at least a minimum level for their children should have their children taken away from them and prohibited from reproducing in the future. That would include reducing welfare payments each time they get pregnant, etc. Require a minimum level of maturity and punish people who cannot or will not achieve it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate the sentiment behind your position - problem is, it's always the child who suffers in the end.
Click to expand...

No, you take the kid and you put them with someone who is capable of raising them properly. Taking a child out of a poverty-stricken situation and putting them with middle-class parents will always improve the lot of the child, especially if taken out early enough before bad behaviors can be indoctrinated.
 
Rocketman said:
I think people that have children that they can't financially support should be sterilized immediately and that child removed from their home
Click to expand...

So return to the policies that have created such a black mark on our society that states are still attempting to figure out a way to apologize for the human rights abuses the policy permitted?
 
Fiddytree said:
So return to the policies that have created such a black mark on our society that states are still attempting to figure out a way to apologize for the human rights abuses the policy permitted?
Click to expand...

You return to the place where people were responsible for their own and natural selection weeded out the stupid and poor decision makers? yes
 
Rocketman said:
You return to the place where people were responsible for their own and natural selection weeded out the stupid and poor decision makers? yes
Click to expand...

What return? You think people were responsible in the past? Dear lord, how incredibly naive.

Second of all, what responsibility was it instilling to have some doctor or social worker order away your civil liberties, falsify or provide no medical information, and sterilize them? The obsession with the taxpayer and their money quickly made you forget even the most basic of liberties.

Third, that's not natural selection, that's social darwinism: an "acceleration" of the process by human intervention, based on superfluousness.
 
Fiddytree said:
What return? You think people were responsible in the past? Dear lord, how incredibly naive.

Second of all, what responsibility was it instilling to have some doctor or social worker order away your civil liberties, falsify or provide no medical information, and sterilize them? The obsession with the taxpayer and their money quickly made you forget even the most basic of liberties.
Click to expand...

Having children you can't support is not a liberty. It is irresponisbile and humane to put them down according to the humane society.
 
Rocketman said:
Having children you can't support is not a liberty. It is irresponisbile and humane to put them down according to the humane society.
Click to expand...

Being able to produce without someone violating your body is liberty.
 
Fiddytree said:
Being able to produce without someone violating your body is liberty.
Click to expand...

Not when the general public then has take care of it, it is a burden
 
Rocketman said:
no, just basic principle and integrity
Click to expand...

On the contrary, little could be more demonstrative of human barbarity and godlessness. In the pursuit of your fantasy money, you seek to destroy something mankind hadn't invented and control them at one of their most basic levels.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom