• 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!

Who, if anyone, should be put on State mandated birth control?

Who, if anyone, should the State force on birth control?


  • Total voters
    68
My list would include telemarketers, self help gurus, scientologists, k-mart shoppers, mimes and lobbyists.

I can pobably think of some more with due time.
 
My list would include telemarketers, self help gurus, scientologists, k-mart shoppers, mimes and lobbyists.

I can pobably think of some more with due time.

I'd like to add Jehovah's Witlesses to the list. Also, any woman who at any time has referred to herself as a princess or Diva.
 
I'd like to add Jehovah's Witlesses to the list. Also, any woman who at any time has referred to herself as a princess or Diva.

That would kill off 50% of the populations of Florida and California! :shock:
 
What if someone is "pro-choice" for the same reasons they are in favor of mandatory birth control?

What if the same "pro-choice" person was actually in favor of mandatory abortions as well?

Not everyone uses the same mentality for supporting abortion. For some people, it's not choice that's an issue. It's the belief that most people shouldn't have kids to begin with.

I'm not saying that's my position, but I do know some people who hold that position.

This is why the pro-choice label is misleading. Some people are just pro-abortion.
My point exactly. You can't claim to be pro-choice and then force somebody to make a choice. That is hypocritical. A more accurate name would be supporters of forced abortion or anti-childbirth.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
In the natural world, procreation is the consequence of sex
Procreation is not a consequence. It is a means of continuing a species. In the natural world, procreation is the necessary benefit of sex. Without it species would cease to exist.
 
My point exactly. You can't claim to be pro-choice and then force somebody to make a choice. That is hypocritical. A more accurate name would be supporters of forced abortion or anti-childbirth.

I don't support forced abortion. However, it seems to me that a woman who isn't able to care for the children she has, and is required to seek assistance from the taxpayers, has forfeited, to some degree, the right to have more children and impose further on the rest of us.

And that's why norplant was invented.
 
Procreation is not a consequence. It is a means of continuing a species. In the natural world, procreation is the necessary benefit of sex. Without it species would cease to exist.

con·se·quence
n. 1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.


Procreation isn't something that logically or naturally follows from having sex?
 
Procreation is not a consequence. It is a means of continuing a species. In the natural world, procreation is the necessary benefit of sex. Without it species would cease to exist.

No, it's definitely a consequence of the act.
 
No, it's definitely a consequence of the act.

It is a consequence, a consequence intended by nature whether it be God, or evolution.
 
:( :cry:

I'm a k-mart shopper

You think you have it a bad in his world, I'm a mime who shops at k-mart and does volunteer self-help seminars on removing one's self from an invisible box while lobbying for increased telemarketing rights!
 
You think you have it a bad in his world, I'm a mime who shops at k-mart and does volunteer self-help seminars on removing one's self from an invisible box while lobbying for increased telemarketing rights!

Tuckers mom is a candidate for mandatory birth control. :yes:
 
Tuckers mom is a candidate for mandatory birth control. :yes:

Too late for her. She did get her tubes tied like immediately after I was born, though. Literally. It was within a couple of hours.


I often mention to her how that makes me feel just a tad unwanted.

It's especially painful when she says things like "I got my tubes tied right after this one came out. No way was I having anymore kids afgter that mess!"

Not that I can blame her, but it doesn't make the bad thoughts go away.
 
Last edited:
Too late for her. She did get her tubes tied like immediately after I was born, though. Literally. It was within a couple of hours.


I often mention to her how that makes me feel just a tad unwanted.

It's especially painful when she says things like "I got my tubes tied right after this one came out. No way was I having anymore kids afgter that mess!"

Not that I can blame her, but it doesn't make the bad thoughts go away.

Dude! Now you got me all depressed! :(
 
Nobody should be forced to undergo mandated birth control.

I did not vote because all of the votes were for birth control.
 
Anyone over the age of 15...



:mrgreen:
 
Inhertiable diseases, definitely. They can adopt children, but shouldn't be allowed to produce one. Drug addicts, child abusers, and mentally retarded maybe, depends on the case.

However, it's way over the limit to put people on hand outs on birth control. I would never support that, and I don't get why so many people here (33%) want to put them on birth control. :2no4:
 
No one made the argument that the body does not belong to the person. If you can show where that argument was made I will address it, too.
Then for sake of argument only, consider me to have made one like it. Do you wish to open that can of worms here or on another thread?
 
Back
Top Bottom