• 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
Then you understand very little about the basic human as an animal. Every animal including humans have the natural urge to procreate.

No the natural urge is not, "Oh gee I wish I had a child I think I'll go have sex." The urge is to have sex. In the natural world, procreation is the consequence of sex, but sex is what is desired.

It is not up to the state to tell anyone they can or cannot breed unless they give up that right by committing a crime.

Yes, I gathered that this is your opinion, though I'm not sure if differs much from mine. Many people who would be deemed unfit to be parents would be so because of some crime they committed, particularly against children.

Your reasoning is flawed if not typical of the modern day progressive. Who complains about the Christian right and it's "morality" being forced into to law for things like abortion and the death penalty etc.

Okay go ahead and explain why it is flawed.

The argument that the government has to use forced birth control against women (what about men?)

Sure why not men?

who are in one way or another unable to take care of their children doesn't hold. There are far less intrusive options available that will just as effectively make sure that children are not raised under indecent conditions.

We can help the families, provide treatment and therapy for the problems that renders them unfit for raising children. If the parents are so far out that they cannot be helped we can take away the children as it happens already.

There are no good reasons for forced sterilisations.

Sure there is. It's better to be proactive and prevent the problem in the first place. You can't undo the damage that is done after it is done. You can prevent the suffering from happening if the person who wants to become a parent has already demonstrated they cannot take care of a child.

By the way - who has been known to use forced sterilisation? Nazi Germany and the Chinese occupation forces in Tibet - is that a club a democratic and civilised country would like to join?

I hope you see the difference between sterilization and direct extermination, but beyond that just because something has been misused doesn't mean it should never be used at all.
 
Last edited:
BTW severly mentally retarded people can't have sex. It's illegal as they are unable to consent making the act rape.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and it's irrelevant whether it's illegal or not when it's another "retarded" person doing them.

But you may have already knew that. So I'm wonderinng at what point you would class a person as Severly mentally disabled.

A psychiatrist can determine that. My only concern is that a person with severe mental challenges may not be able to take care of a child.

How about physically disabled? you got a problem with that too?

Not if they can take care of a child.
 
Last edited:
No the natural urge is not, "Oh gee I wish I had a child I think I'll go have sex." The urge is to have sex. In the natural world, procreation is the consequence of sex, but sex is what is desired.

And that "urge" exists for 1 reason and one reason only. The only reason it is a little different with other animals is we know why. This only because we have more reasoning ability.

Yes, I gathered that this is your opinion, though I'm not sure if differs much from mine. Many people who would be deemed unfit to be parents would be so because of some crime they committed, particularly against children.

Committing a crime you give up your rights. Accepting aid in the form of a government hand out is not.

Okay go ahead and explain why it is flawed.

I already did.
 
Committing a crime you give up your rights. Accepting aid in the form of a government hand out is not.

Well it seems we both think it should be used more, I just draw the line a little further than you.
 
Well it seems we both think it should be used more, I just draw the line a little further than you.

You misunderstand. The government should not be able to tell anyone they can or cannot breed.

Criminals can't simply while in prison. Upon release they are free to do what they will.

Now if you were required to sign a contract and give up your reproductive rights, say in the case of welfare. I would have no problem as long as it is voluntary and not forced.

Giving the government the power to arbitrarily tell people who can and cannot breed would rank us right up there with China.
 
Then you understand very little about the basic human as an animal. Every animal including humans have the natural urge to procreate.

We spay/neuter animals all the time. I have zero problems with doing it temporarily to human animals that have demonstrated, by their actions, that they are incapable of caring for children.
 
You misunderstand. The government should not be able to tell anyone they can or cannot breed.

The government wouldn't be doing it. It would be "we the people," who end up paying for the services that these deadbeat parents absorb out of our personal tax dollars.

Now if you were required to sign a contract and give up your reproductive rights, say in the case of welfare. I would have no problem as long as it is voluntary and not forced.

Giving up reproductive rights should be a condition of accepting welfare. And, last I checked, welfare was voluntary.
 
The government wouldn't be doing it. It would be "we the people," who end up paying for the services that these deadbeat parents absorb out of our personal tax dollars.

And yet you support things like AA?

That a bit hypocritical don't you think?

Or am I worng?

Giving up reproductive rights should be a condition of accepting welfare. And, last I checked, welfare was voluntary.

Thats what I said. This way it is not forced, or a government mandate.
 
Blackdog's pretty much summed it up. Welfare is optional, birth control is optional. You agree to one, you agree to the other - in a perfect world.

Reprocussions for irresponsibility is never a bad thing.
 
And yet you support things like AA?

That a bit hypocritical don't you think?

Or am I worng?

Affirmative action? I don't see the connection.

Thats what I said. This way it is not forced, or a government mandate.

Now if you were required to sign a contract and give up your reproductive rights, say in the case of welfare. I would have no problem as long as it is voluntary and not forced.

Well of course that's how it would be done in the case of welfare, but if somebody really needs the assistance, the distinction between forced and voluntary blurs a bit. But the fact would remain that they can't support a family and shouldn't be forcing others to support their growing family.
 
And yet you support things like AA?

Where do you get that? I've specifically stated several times in this thread that I don't support racial quotas.

Or am I worng?

You've misunderstood my position.
Thats what I said. This way it is not forced, or a government mandate.

That's what I said originally and you had a hissy fit. I think that women who accept welfare should sign a contract not to reproduce. If they get knocked up, their benefits are cut off. I also believe that first time child abuse offenders should not be allowed to breed. One strike, you're out.
 
We spay/neuter animals all the time. I have zero problems with doing it temporarily to human animals that have demonstrated, by their actions, that they are incapable of caring for children.

And you can have that opinion. My opinion is the opposite.

PS Animals have no rights. It was an example of nature, not rights.
 
Affirmative action? I don't see the connection.

Because the question was not addressed to you.

Well of course that's how it would be done in the case of welfare, but if somebody really needs the assistance, the distinction between forced and voluntary blurs a bit. But the fact would remain that they can't support a family and shouldn't be forcing others to support their growing family.

As long as it is voluntary, I have no problem.
 
Are we animals or not animals? Pick one and stick with it.

And you say I am getting hissy?

I said we are and have not changed this...

A Human is always an animal. An Animal is not always a human. :doh
 
Where do you get that? I've specifically stated several times in this thread that I don't support racial quotas.

Thats why I asked if I was wrong.

That's what I said originally and you had a hissy fit.

A hissy fit?

We are talking. I have had no emotional reaction to this at all.

I think that women who accept welfare should sign a contract not to reproduce. If they get knocked up, their benefits are cut off.

I would think no benefit increase is a better idea.

I also believe that first time child abuse offenders should not be allowed to breed. One strike, you're out.

No. To many mistakes are made in our system for it to be absolute.
 
Last edited:
Because the question was not addressed to you.

I know it was not addressed to me, and incidentally it applies to neither of us because neither of us seem to believe in affirmative action. My question was what supporting affirmative action would have to do with supporting regulating reproduction. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Would somebody who believes in having more minorities in jobs and schools have to be opposed to reproductive regulation in order to be consistent? I don't see how.
 
I know it was not addressed to me, and incidentally it applies to neither of us because neither of seem to believe in affirmative action. My question was what supporting affirmative action would have to do with supporting regulating reproduction. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Would somebody who believes in having more minorities in jobs and schools have to be opposed to reproductive regulation in order to be consistent? I don't see how.

That is why I asked if I was wrong.

You did read the whole thing right? :2wave:
 
That is why I asked if I was wrong.

You did read the whole thing right? :2wave:

Yes but I don't care whether you were wrong about her position on affirmative action or not. Suppose she had been some other person who was actually for AA. How would it be hypocritical to support reproductive regulation?
 
Wait wait I get it. You associate reproductive regulation with eugenics, which historically wanted to use reproductive regulation to reduce the numbers and influence of minorities. If that's the case you would simply be wrong because reproductive regulation doesn't have to be supportive of eugenics.
 
Wait wait I get it. You associate reproductive regulation with eugenics, which historically wanted to use reproductive regulation to reduce the numbers and influence of minorities. If that's the case you would simply be wrong because reproductive regulation doesn't have to be supportive of eugenics.

But it would control indirectly the birth rates of many minority's. I am certain many would love to see it done for that reason.
 
But it would control indirectly the birth rates of many minority's. I am certain many would love to see it done for that reason.

Well it doesn't matter whether racists like it or not, or whether it disproportionately affects minorities or not as "race" is a social construct that we ought to remember to forget about. What matters to me is the innocent 3rd parties, i.e. children and taxpayers, do not have to pay for the behavior of irresponsible parents. And when they bring children into the world that they cannot care for, and those children subsequently have problems, that does a lot more to perpetuate racism than simply having fewer of them. Poverty breeds crime, and a lack of opportunities breed both. Maybe we could build more schools and fewer prisons. Better for everybody.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
But it would control indirectly the birth rates of many minority's. I am certain many would love to see it done for that reason.

I'm an "end justifies the means" guy. Whether perpetuated by legitimate socioeconomic change or racism, if it works I'm not about to question it. I'm all about elimination the procreation of trash - whatever color their skin is.

I just find it ironic that Klansmen support this kind of thing when it would eventually wipe out their ignorant masses too.
 
Back
Top Bottom