• 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 .
Surtr said:
I don't have an answer that doesn't involve the parents manning up and beating the **** out of their druggie son, or the abusive mother, which probably isn't the best course of action. I'm not exactly great parent material myself, which is why I chose a long time ago not to have children.

However, forcing abortions and sterilizations is inherently wrong on every level.
Click to expand...

What about taking children away from their parents? I mean that obviously goes against human nature. It causes such psychological distress in parents to see their children taken away from them. We see this throughout the animal kingdom among all species that care for their offspring. But as a society we do this because we recognize children inherently have rights not to be abused or neglected.

What's the criteria for sterilization? How do they determine who goes under the knife to have their organs forcibly removed from their bodies? What if they make a mistake and permanently damage an innocent person? What if all they need is just a little growing up, and given the chance, would turn out to be wonderful parents?
Click to expand...

Certainly a valid question. Long-term birth control?

You can't give someone back their reproductive abilities, and we may as well just be putting them up against a wall to shoot them.
Click to expand...

That's not true.
 
Neomalthusian said:
How do our courts currently decide whose parental rights to terminate?

Surely you could think of some fairly no-brainer examples of people who should not be getting pregnant and having/raising children. Polysubstance addicts, for example?

Truthfully the answer to your question is "I don't know," which was why I introduced a few ideas in the poll, and welcomed more/other ideas.
Click to expand...

temporary removal is one thing, but the problem with finding a more permanent solution is that once you start deeming who is fit and proper to be a parent, you end up having to draw lines. and where should these lines be drawn?

there are some fairly obvious cases - but do we know that the addict can never redeem herself?

Can we be 100% sure that the young teenage parent who is not coping now will ALWAYS be an inadequate parent?

In my experience you can't be sure. You also need to be really careful when your personal understanding of things determine what is/isn't right for others.

My cousin's late wife was removed from her mother (along with two younger siblings) when she was eight, and sent as a child migrant to another country. Her mother had to give her children up. her husband (who now probably would have been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD after his wartime experiences) had walked out on her and she had no way of supporting them.

"for the good of the children so they could make a new life" her mothers letters were never passed on. In her late forties, she located one of her brothers, and some distant relatives. her mother had died a few years before. her baby brother had "failed to thrive."

who determined that her mother was not fit? what gives anyone the right to judge these cases?

far better we work as a community TOGETHER to help the most vulnerable members of society, otherwise we should not be referring to ourselves as civilized.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Your response echoes several others that have been provided thus far, which essentially says fix families rather than restrict them. This is a politically correct answer, not to say it's a bad one per se, because I do agree with it, and I have a tendency to very much agree with the others who have given this answer, but the question then becomes "how?" How do we suddenly return to this? What do we actually DO to change our culture?

Specifically, for example, what would your plan do about the 22-year old train-wreck polysubstance addict who is having unprotected sex as often as possible, with as many men (who are also addicts) as possible?

Some babies are being abused and permanently neurologically damaged from the moment of conception onward. Why are all human rights subject to restriction in certain cases, except this one, which is sacrosanct?
Click to expand...

you do raise some good points, but as with many of these questions, the answer is never simple.

I think the answer will lie in a suite of strategies. It may include financial incentives NOT to have children. It may include better access to contraception and abortion, it may include education, counseling and or long term therapy, parenting classes, practical supports and better ante natal and neonatal services for at risk mothers/infants ... and a number of other practical approaches.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
temporary removal is one thing, but the problem with finding a more permanent solution is that once you start deeming who is fit and proper to be a parent, you end up having to draw lines. and where should these lines be drawn?

there are some fairly obvious cases - but do we know that the addict can never redeem herself?
Click to expand...

That's like asking if a child can ever truly get over the PTSD his/her parents caused him/her. The answer is "who knows," but the duty to protect children is, arguably, society's. Since we are willing to make exceptions to ALL rights in certain cases, why don't we ever make exceptions to reproductive rights?

Again, I ask you, where do our courts currently draw the line between who can be a child's guardian and who cannot? They do determine these things currently, I assure you.

Can we be 100% sure that the young teenage parent who is not coping now will ALWAYS be an inadequate parent?
Click to expand...

No, but is that hail mary worth the most basic health and safety of a baby?

who determined that her mother was not fit? what gives anyone the right to judge these cases?
Click to expand...

What gives us the right to ignore and neglect an abused child?
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's like asking if a child can ever truly get over the PTSD his/her parents caused him/her. The answer is "who knows," but the duty to protect children is, arguably, society's. Since we are willing to make exceptions to ALL rights in certain cases, why don't we ever make exceptions to reproductive rights?

Again, I ask you, where do our courts currently draw the line between who can be a child's guardian and who cannot? They do determine these things currently, I assure you.



No, but is that hail mary worth the most basic health and safety of a baby?



What gives us the right to ignore and neglect an abused child?
Click to expand...

Can you point to anywhere where I have claimed that we SHOULD ignore and neglect an abused child?

as I said in another post - the answer is never simple.

The fact is that many strategies that may go a long way to addressing these issues are always put in the "too expensive" basket.

Many cases I know of that involves serious child abuse also involves overloaded child protection caseworkers, or caseworkers that haven't had adequate training.

Many involve parents whose mental health has been severely compromised - often by their own traumatic childhoods, and a lack of mental health and practical support services to help them cope.

Some of the strategies that I also outlined in a previous post cost money. and taxpayers and governments just don't want to go there. They often prefer to put their heads in the sand when addressing the issues comes with a price tag - even if the long term cost of inaction is far greater.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
Can you point to anywhere where I have claimed that we SHOULD ignore and neglect an abused child?

as I said in another post - the answer is never simple.

The fact is that many strategies that may go a long way to addressing these issues are always put in the "too expensive" basket.
Click to expand...

It's hard to help without enabling, and it's hard to withdraw enabling measures without causing neglect.

Many cases I know of that involves serious child abuse also involves overloaded child protection caseworkers, or caseworkers that haven't had adequate training.

Many involve parents whose mental health has been severely compromised - often by their own traumatic childhoods, and a lack of mental health and practical support services to help them cope.

Some of the strategies that I also outlined in a previous post cost money. and taxpayers and governments just don't want to go there. They often prefer to put their heads in the sand when addressing the issues comes with a price tag - even if the long term cost of inaction is far greater.
Click to expand...

I reckon you are pretty much correct about this.
 
I believe society should dissuade (or discourage) reproducing of any kind. Seven-billion and rising, we will face this problem at some point, and there are only two ways of rectifying it.
 
I still think that those applying for welfare benefits for an existing child that they cannot afford should have to be on some kind of long-term BC if possible until they are no longer receiving services. :shrug:

Why should we be okay with people having additional children while already receiving services for one (or ones) that they can't care for?
 
Neomalthusian said:
Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others?
Click to expand...

You and the rest of your ilk could bawl about it more.
 
How about we just stop incentivising having children, no benefits for having dependents.
 
Can't fathom an enforcement mechanism that would respect the personal sovereignty of the individuals in question or avoid eugenicist/class based approaches, so no.
 
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...

But if they have an abortion, well that's a horrible crime.

So what you're saying is the government should step in an forcibly sterilize someone. This from a "libertarian." Hate to break it to you, other people have rights. The whole she-bang ain't just about you.
 
Henrin said:
Nothing at all is wrong with me for picking no. I'm just doing what what I always do when people ask questions like this. People do not need permission from the state to reproduce nor does the state have any say on who reproduces when. The choice was pretty easy for me to make, imho.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. The word *incompetent* is not very precise. I took it as those who could not afford to have children thus leaving the taxpayers on the hook.

If we were talking about the mentally or physically challenged, that's another issue.
 
Fiddytree said:
The options were heavily tilted in the direction of forced or incentivized sterilization practices. I do not want us to go down that dark road of human rights violations again, just because some folks think they are owed control over someone's body because tax payers subsidize programs. It violates human rights and almost entirely targets the poor and the disabled. These are not "consequences" of childbirth. They are a conscious over-extension of power seeking to fundamentally alter the functions of the human body. If it became uncomfortable for such practices to continue 20 years after the holocaust, it should still frighten us.
Click to expand...

What about crackheads or addicts of any sort? Men who impregnate dozens of women without regard to the children they produce? Women who have babies as tax credits or have illegal alien's babies so they can anchor up? Rapists?

Do they all get a pass?
 
Where do we set the line for "financially unable" to support kids? I'm not so sure that simply getting government assistance by itself is the benchmark. We give a lot of money to people and projects that aren't in dire shape. Many people would still get by ok if they had none, but take it because it's available.

Also, there are many people in the world that would love to have the lifestyle of "poor in America".
 
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...

Other: Follow the same option as your mother.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe tacit consent has already been given by the state.
 
Cephus said:
Ever hear of personal responsibility? Rights come with inherent responsibilities and actions have consequences.
Click to expand...
Oh. Who enforces the "inherent responsibilities" and how. Yup, actions have consequences, but who bears them, the only one that took the action or do some innocents get dragged in instead?

Cephus your first post was "I think people that have children that they can't financially support should be sterilized immediately and that child removed from their home" I don't understand having someone come in after the child is born and screw things up even more. And I can't square any of your opinion on this subject with your Libertarianism.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
But if they have an abortion, well that's a horrible crime.

So what you're saying is the government should step in an forcibly sterilize someone. This from a "libertarian." Hate to break it to you, other people have rights. The whole she-bang ain't just about you.
Click to expand...

People do not have rights that infringe on the rights of others.
 
radcen said:
What happens when the rights of two people overlap? Do both lose that right?
Click to expand...

So far under Obama only the working class has lost their rights
 
Neomalthusian said:
:shrug:

I recognize what the majority does, and what the majority thinks. This happens to be a topic in which I challenge the majority opinion. Seems to get you a bit worked up...
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out how the real world works. Welfare incentives don't produce more children as large families are dependent on societal context. North America is next to Europe when it comes to continental wide child production. Above us are continents where welfare programs either exist in bare bones fashion or don't exist at all. So it's clear that "letting others" take care of your extra children is not taken into account when having them.

Just pointing out that you went straight after me, not the question being posed.
Click to expand...

If you consider being a Libertarian, 17 years old, or having a basic understanding of Ayn Rand to be an insult - report it. I dare ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom