• 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
Well, how do you feel about those who are receiving social services, who keep having children that other people end up having to support? What would be bad about perhaps mandatory birth control or sterilization for those people? And only a temporary basis until they are no longer receiving those services and are able to care for themselves and a family?

I think that promoting free birth control (long acting like IUD or a matchstick size implant) for
welfare moms would help.
I don't agree with it being mandatory But I do think it should be encouaged.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I am. I haven't done much research on the subject of sterilization thankfully.

Simply put, it's not your decision to make. Entities and individuals that receive tax dollars aren't subject to the will and dictate of John Q. Taxpayer by default you know.

That's not a reason. IF I am supporting those children, then, yes, I AM INVOLVED, and I should have a say in the matter of whether I have to support more of this person's children or not. You are just approaching this from a "moral" perspective instead of a logical one.
 
From a logical point. Most of the mass murderers are from a well-to-do white demographic. So wealthy whites should not reproduce? Sounds sensible, eh?
Strange how some who wail, moan and label 3 percent tax increases as Class Warfare are on board with a proposition that would forceably sterilize those with incomes they find troublesome isn't it?
 
I think that promoting free birth control (long acting like IUD or a matchstick size implant) for
welfare moms mught be wokable.
I don't agree with it being mandatory But I do think it should be encouaged.

Well, I'm basically playing devil's advocate. I don't necessarily agree with mandatory sterilization. I would like to hear some GOOD reasons why we shouldn't do it though.
 
Birth control is already encouraged. I know it works to some degree, but not well enough I'm afraid.
 
What about those who moan and complaint about their "right" to an abortion IF they get pregnant? Why not sterilization?
 
That's not a reason.

IF I am supporting those children, then, yes, I AM INVOLVED, and I should have a say in the matter of whether I have to support more of this person's children or not.

You are just approaching this from a "moral" perspective instead of a logical one.
Sure it is.

No more than your right to dictate in which foreign conflicts the military sees fit to intervene, the dietary and excercise habits of medicare recipients, or the saving and spending patterns of social security beneficiaries.

Both actually.
 
Sure it is.

No more than your right to dictate in which foreign conflicts the military sees fit to intervene, the dietary and excercise habits of medicare recipients, or the saving and spending patterns of social security beneficiaries.

Both actually.

I don't see this situation as being the same thing at all. This isn't dictating how to spend money or military conflicts or anything like that. This is about people who are unable or unwilling to support their own families who keep adding to their family and relying on others to support them for all of their needs. Logistically, this would be a benefit not only to the taxpayer but also to the welfare recipient and to the "potential" child that would be born into a cycle of poverty.

Your opposition is based upon moral grounds and nothing more.
 
What about those who moan and complaint about their "right" to an abortion IF they get pregnant? Why not sterilization?
You answered your own question. Those folks in question want a choice in the matter based on the given circumstance, not a surgery that would eliminate all possibility.
 
You answered your own question. Those folks in question want a choice in the matter based on the given circumstance, not a surgery that would eliminate all possibility.

So basically, you are saying that you are perfectly fine with terminating pregnancies at the taxpayers' expense instead of preventing them to begin with? Hmmm. Interesting. Still isn't very logical though.
 
What about those who moan and complaint about their "right" to an abortion IF they get pregnant? Why not sterilization?

I feel if a person chooses to be sterilized that should be their choice.
I also feel if a woman chooses to have an early abortion that should be her choice.
But I am Totally against mandatory sterilizations or mandatory abortions.
 
So terminating a pregnancy/potential life is NOT a moral dilemma, but preventing one is? :confused:
 
Certainly interesting how most advocates of such a proposition center their arguments strictly on the income of the parents. The concern for the child's well being seems completely disingenuous.

Income isn't the sole deciding factor in the well being of a child, it's just one part of it.
But none the less, there is a compelling public interest involved.

We pay a social cost for people who have kids they can't take care of, many of them turn out to be future criminals.
 
So basically, you are saying that you are perfectly fine with terminating pregnancies at the taxpayers' expense instead of preventing them to begin with? Hmmm. Interesting. Still isn't very logical though.

Who said anything about tax payers paying for abortions?
 
I don't see this situation as being the same thing at all. This isn't dictating how to spend money or military conflicts or anything like that. This is about people who are unable or unwilling to support their own families who keep adding to their family and relying on others to support them for all of their needs.

Logistically, this would be a benefit not only to the taxpayer but also to the welfare recipient and to the "potential" child that would be born into a cycle of poverty.

Your opposition is based upon moral grounds and nothing more.
Sheesh, it was a simple analogy. The fact that certain individuals, entities and departments receive tax payer funds, does not render them subject to your whims and fancies. Simple as that.

Not everyone holds the same view of potential "benefits." Especially when another decides on their behalf.

Moral grounds, in addition to logical and legal implications. I'd be fascinated to learn of a legal provision that would allow the federal government to practice wanton discrimination in the form of stripping away reproductive rights based on income. Equal protection anyone?
 
Sheesh, it was a simple analogy. The fact that certain individuals, entities and departments receive tax payer funds, does not render them subject to your whims and fancies. Simple as that.

Why not? They have proven that they are unable to care for themselves or any future children. "Just because" isn't good enough.

Not everyone holds the same view of potential "benefits." Especially when another decides on their behalf.

I'm sure that everyone can agree that a person who cannot take care of themselves would not be able to take care of any additional children. This is not a philosophical question.

Moral grounds, in addition to logical and legal implications. I'd be fascinated to learn of a legal provision that would allow the federal government to practice wanton discrimination in the form of stripping away reproductive rights based on income. Equal protection anyone?

I can agree with that, which is one of the main reasons why I object to it, but in theory it is NOT a bad idea.
 
Who said anything about tax payers paying for abortions?

I'm talking about people who are receiving social services. Obviously they aren't paying for their own abortions.
 
I do not support licensing for having children.... not even a little bit.....I do not support it and would not comply with such a regulation.

with authoritarian statism fast becoming a prevailing political lean in this country, I can see why folks would support such bull**** though.
 
So basically, you are saying that you are perfectly fine with terminating pregnancies at the taxpayers' expense instead of preventing them to begin with? Hmmm. Interesting. Still isn't very logical though.
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out the glaring, unsubtle flaws in your proposition. Individuals who want all prospects of procreating wiped clean would be sterilized as you proposed. Those who feel they should have a choice would avoid that route. The two stances are antithetical.
 
I'm talking about people who are receiving social services. Obviously they aren't paying for their own abortions.

Medicaid only covers abortions in 15 states.

Medicaid covers abortion in 15 states in the U.S. If you live in one of the states below, click on the state name to be taken to some instructions about how to enroll in Medicaid quickly. If you want to use Medicaid to cover your abortion, you must live in and have your abortion in the same state. Your Medicaid coverage will not follow you if you need to travel out of state.

If you do not live in one of these 15 states, your Medicaid will not cover your abortion.
Many clinics offer discounts for women who are enrolled in Medicaid.
Can Medicaid cover my abortion? | Fund Abortion Now.org

Edited to add:

If they can't afford their abortions sometimes they can recieve free or dicounted ones because others have made donations that are given to the clinics
to help these women.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out the glaring, unsubtle flaws in your proposition. Individuals who want all prospects of procreating wiped clean would be sterilized as you proposed. Those who feel they should have a choice would avoid that route. The two stances are antithetical.

I see your point, but still it wouldn't hurt to prevent unwanted children. :shrug:

I am strictly referring to those collecting welfare and who have more than one child, just to be clear here.

Another angle. What if the woman is collecting welfare, has more than one child and has also had more than one abortion? Still leave the choice up to her? What about a mentally disabled person (man or woman)? One who is really not capable of sexual consent on either an intellectual or emotional level, yet has had multiple children and is collecting services?
 
Why not? They have proven that they are unable to care for themselves or any future children. "Just because" isn't good enough.



I'm sure that everyone can agree that a person who cannot take care of themselves would not be able to take care of any additional children. This is not a philosophical question.
Legal implications, as mentioned before. The only recourse you have is calling up your congressman and encouraging him to alter the income qualifications for welfare, the amount of children that one is compensated for, or abolish it altogether. After that, it's hands off. Poor folks don't have to garner your approval in order to screw.

Missed the point. Lower income families who would like to have another child wouldn't view your dictates as beneficiary nor welcome.
 
Originally Posted by minnie616
Medicaid only covers abortions in 15 states.


Can Medicaid cover my abortion? | Fund Abortion Now.org
Minnie, that is really kind of irrelevant to my point; let's not turn this into yet another abortion thread.

Not irrelevant since you brought SS paying for abortions.

Originally Posted by ChrisL
I'm talking about people who are receiving social services. Obviously they aren't paying for their own abortions.
 
Back
Top Bottom