• 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
100% agree...and now you can stand with me and fend off the arrows shot your way from the bleeding hearts who think that stupidity and irresponsibility being subsidized by taxpayers should continue as planned.

Irresponsibility should not be funded, either on an individual level or on a corporate level. This mentality has led to the decay of this country, imo.

Everyone's always focusing on the kid's parents and not the kids when they talk about these things.

I don't care what hte parents have done - I don't feel it's moral to allow kids to suffer without food and clothing for their parent's poor decisions... the only thing I Might agree on is the housing thing but that's actually not extremely common. Most of the time the gov provides financial assistance for housing and other basics.

THE CHILDREN! THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the sum of your entire argument.

Exactly the opposite is happening. The reason these programs keep getting expanded is precisely because there is so much emphasis on the kids, and virtually none regarding the parents.

Exactly. As I have said, provide welfare for the children who have already had the misfortune for being genetically selected to be born to lousy parent, but for the love of pizza, put stipulations on the funding such as sterilization.
 
Is it true? If so, then why are we "needing" to keep expanding the programs? Shouldn't people doing better mean fewer and/or smaller programs necessary? (This is an ever-increasing issue, and is not really tied to economic trends of a given moment in time,btw)

Some programs, such as school lunches, are being expanded to the point that even some of the most ardent supporters admit they're 'helping' kids and families that honestly don't need help, but they're being expanded so all kids are as 'equal' as can be.

I'm not in support of eliminating these programs entirely, but I do believe that have expanded way beyond their legitimate need.

See your last line, here - we agree: I support reforming the programs as well - and not eliminating them.

Food stamps for example: people shouldn't be buying sodas and candy - but it's allowed . . . the only limitation I'm aware of is the sign at the local store that says "You cannot buy energy drinks with your EBT card" (foodstamp card) . . . I support WIC more than foodstamps - it's more strict. Pre-approved foods ONLY. The person is allotted how much they can buy and if they don't spend it they lose it when the 'coupon' expires.

The states need to get with it - they can cut back significantly by narrowing the scope and covering what's necessary - and having requirements - without ending support entirely.

I guess we agree - but we might see *how much* we should cut back in a different view. IN my opinion it should be line-by-line . . . analyze what is needed and how to cater to that need without allow too much wiggle room. . . and then refreshing how things are calculated every few years - they're still using the same 40 year old formula for federal standards of what is the 'poverty line' for example - that could be revisited.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to but it is apparently too fascist.
 
Exactly. As I have said, provide welfare for the children who have already had the misfortune for being genetically selected to be born to lousy parent, but for the love of pizza, put stipulations on the funding such as sterilization.
As long as sterilization is 100% voluntary... and voluntary does NOT include coercion by making it a requirement to get money/help... then that is entirely appropriate.
 
I don't like to see anyone suffer needlessly, kids or adults, but I'm tired of the "...think of the children" mantra. A set of standards needs to be established somewhere, and adhered to, and by "not punishing the children" you are actually encouraging the parents... which only serves to create MORE kids in crappy circumstances.

The point is that a policy should accomplish what it is designed to accomplish with as few side effects as possible. Most of the effects of the proposed policy are not intended purpose of reducing birth rates. A policy should be tailored to specifically achieve its intent, rather than tossed against the wall like spaghetti to see what sticks. The pasta that falls is not merely ignored, it is actual people suffering real harm.
 
If there were a license to have children no one would qualify because of the different personal standards everyone uses as a guideline to raising them. There are already laws protecting children from certain parental abuses and neglect but they are either skimpy in some areas or overly restrictive in others.
 
The point is that a policy should accomplish what it is designed to accomplish with as few side effects as possible. Most of the effects of the proposed policy are not intended purpose of reducing birth rates. A policy should be tailored to specifically achieve its intent, rather than tossed against the wall like spaghetti to see what sticks. The pasta that falls is not merely ignored, it is actual people suffering real harm.
But, where's the tipping point between lessening their harm and just giving more crap... and, while I'm sure not intentionally, actually encourage said destructive behavior while no longer relieving any additional harm whatsoever?

I believe we have surpassed that tipping point.
 
If there were a license to have children no one would qualify because of the different personal standards everyone uses as a guideline to raising them. There are already laws protecting children from certain parental abuses and neglect but they are either skimpy in some areas or overly restrictive in others.
Take corporal punishment, as one example.

Some believe spanking in any form is abuse, no exceptions. Some people believe spanking is effective and appropriate, in moderation. Of course, there are others who take it way too far, yet believe they are right. Would this be on the test? Which answer is the "right" answer?
 
Take corporal punishment, as one example.

Some believe spanking in any form is abuse, no exceptions. Some people believe spanking is effective and appropriate, in moderation. Of course, there are others who take it way too far, yet believe they are right. Would this be on the test? Which answer is the "right" answer?

Every person, child, learned values and situation is different. I agree that the laws have to set the socially acceptable limits of child rearing behavior, leaving a large leeway for interpretation. My father and mother used intimidation to correct me, knowing my mind was not mature enough to always understand the reasons for "NO". My sister and her husband believe in no discipline and "YES" to everything. But then again they raised a spoiled, rotten monster who stays in trouble and respects nothing.

I believe the OP is looking for a reason to exclude the poor from breeding in an effort to suppress welfare and poverty.
 
An animal will like whomever feeds it, regardless of treatment. You are "asking" for something that is automatic, as if it is the pet's decision to make - that's fantasy. You're creating a two-way street where none exists, anthropomorphizing.

You might be the Guardian of the animal, but - more importantly - you are its owner and therefore are responsible for it by law. Your imaginary position as "companion" is counter-productive to personal social development and absolutely secondary to the legal designation of owner.

Yes, what I'm asking for is a natural response to being taken care of. I am aware of that. How is that anthropomorphizing?

I am not responsible for it because I own it. I'm responsible for it because she has needs and requires care.

How is it counterproductive for me to think of her as a companion? How is it socially harmful to do so? You do realize I'm aware she can't talk, right? People call dogs companion animals all the time, and cats really aren't any different if you get the way they communicate.
 
Every person, child, learned values and situation is different. I agree that the laws have to set the socially acceptable limits of child rearing behavior, leaving a large leeway for interpretation. My father and mother used intimidation to correct me, knowing my mind was not mature enough to always understand the reasons for "NO". My sister and her husband believe in no discipline and "YES" to everything. But then again they raised a spoiled, rotten monster who stays in trouble and respects nothing.

I believe the OP is looking for a reason to exclude the poor from breeding in an effort to suppress welfare and poverty.

Sounds like a great plan to a very relevant problem to me.
 
Yes, what I'm asking for is a natural response to being taken care of. I am aware of that. How is that anthropomorphizing?

You're talking about an animal's natural response to being fed, regardless of care or even outright abuse. Pretending that the animal makes a decision to be your "companion" is - in fact and absolutely - anthropomorphizing.

I am not responsible for it because I own it. I'm responsible for it because she has needs and requires care.

You provide for the needs and care of all animals all the time, or just the ones you own?

How is it counterproductive for me to think of her as a companion? How is it socially harmful to do so? You do realize I'm aware she can't talk, right? People call dogs companion animals all the time, and cats really aren't any different if you get the way they communicate.

Imaginary friends take the place of genuine social interaction with consequences and serve as a fantasy model for actual human interpersonal relationships. Pretending that one has a "friend", when one really only has an animal that likes to be fed, is damaging to ones psyche and cognition of real social interaction.
 
No way. Educational programs do almost nothing to reduce social programs like this,

The fact that the average American family is now made up of 2.6 people and not 6-7 kids + adults, refutes this argument.
 
As long as sterilization is 100% voluntary... and voluntary does NOT include coercion by making it a requirement to get money/help... then that is entirely appropriate.

It would be voluntary. If they want a check, get sterilized. That is not coercion. They don't HAVE TO take the check.
 
Sounds like a great plan to a very relevant problem to me.


I don't know what the ethical answer is except that nature has a particularly harsh way of correcting over population of species that use up resources as evidenced in Sudan and other poor areas of the world. I figure eventually they'll go from "NO Abortion" and promoting large families to the extreme of sterilizing children at birth to reduce the population.
 
You're talking about an animal's natural response to being fed, regardless of care or even outright abuse. Pretending that the animal makes a decision to be your "companion" is - in fact and absolutely - anthropomorphizing.

Animals will not love you if you abuse them, even if you feed them. Especially not cats. Try going to a shelter sometime. The abused animals will definitely take food from you, but they'll also try to hide or maul you if they haven't been rehabilitated yet.

You provide for the needs and care of all animals all the time, or just the ones you own?

To some extent, everything we do impacts all variety of creatures. But my responsibilities to my own cat are simply a lot more direct, and other humans besides me don't affect it as much.

Imaginary friends take the place of genuine social interaction with consequences and serve as a fantasy model for actual human interpersonal relationships. Pretending that one has a "friend", when one really only has an animal that likes to be fed, is damaging to ones psyche and cognition of real social interaction.

Dude, what are you on about? Lots and lots of people have animals and view them as companions, while simultaneously managing to have plenty of meaningful human interactions. I am one of them. If you are saying that doesn't exist, you are accusing the majority of people of "living in a fantasy land" by having pets.
 
Animals will not love you if you abuse them, even if you feed them. Especially not cats. Try going to a shelter sometime. The abused animals will definitely take food from you, but they'll also try to hide or maul you if they haven't been rehabilitated yet.

Yes they will. Your example, a shelter, is not the same as a private home. I should have included private space, consistent shelter and knowledge of other animals nearby. With those things, an animal will "love" and be a "companion" even to an abuser.

To some extent, everything we do impacts all variety of creatures. But my responsibilities to my own cat are simply a lot more direct, and other humans besides me don't affect it as much.

Thus, the defining relationship between you and your animal is ownership, not an obligation to help all animals. See, I have an obligation to help all animals, and I do so whenever possible (eg. buying flea collars for cats that are not mine, building enclosures for cows that are not mine, etc); yet, I do not own a pet. An obligation to serve animals does not lead to being a owner, owning a pet does.


Dude, what are you on about? Lots and lots of people have animals and view them as companions, while simultaneously managing to have plenty of meaningful human interactions. I am one of them. If you are saying that doesn't exist, you are accusing the majority of people of "living in a fantasy land" by having pets.

Imaginary friends, through anthropomorphizing, is not healthy for ones social development.
 
Just addressing a few points that stuck out to me.

For one WIC does help but is ineffective at providing enough support to children and infants of parents either unable to work or who receive just enough to pay rent, hopefully electric. By 4-6 months the formula allottment is insufficient and most use foodstamps to supplement that time period befiore baby food is implemented. You cannot live off of the WIC foods for very long. It is there to make sure the poorest children living off of budgeted foodstamps (between $200-$300 for obne child, $400-$500 for 2 and $600-$700 for 3 children) rnabling the parents to buy enough essentials like milk which is nearly $4/gallon here while a 24 pack of soda remains at $4-$7 per case depending on brand or generic. Reducing benefits for only certain foods doesnt help the kids much if what the parents get per month is essentially cut in half by food choice restrictions when most dont make it through the month soley on foodstamps as is.

The EITC has helped my family thid year and last. Last year or actually 2011, my husband amd I were both employed fulltime making $20,000 combined and we made $10,000 off of the EITC. We only received Medicaid for the kids at the time. March of 2012 our hours were severely cut and if not for the EITC we would have been homeless this year due to no fault of our own. We made $12,000 in 2012 combined! Paying out of pocket child care of $500/month and $700 in rent no less! We sold everything we owned and are back at square one in 2013 with a $7000 EITC and a McJob. We arent unable or unwilling to work its just that being low-skilled (which would have been the case children or not. We cant afford college!) We are expendable for taking care of our premature 3lbs newborn or asthmatic son hospitalized for RSV, or for just climbing a little too hifgh on that ladder. Weve been letgo for all three. The latter was when my husband finally got offered health care options, paid 2 week vacations each year, and paid sick leave, only to be fired DURING his paid vacation. After 6 years we shoukld at least get unemployment... Uh no. We moved when he made assistant manager and the unemployment office wanted to know why he "quit" his former position in Ohio. Same job, same position, different locale and no unemployment. The EITC is the only fallback these families have at times.

Um free housing is a myth. There are pathetically low subsidies sometimes for a month maybe 2 but section 8 has been closed in the majority of states for years now! If people get housing it can be from HUD which isnt free jiust cheap or from charities if selected.

Having Huningtons or CF doesnt mean the child will be born with the disorder in fact my best friend has CF and a son without CF because both parents must be carriers in order to produce a CF child and having CF doesnt make one a carrier automatically either. My aunt was disease free when my cousin was born with microcephaly (a very rare genetic disorder carried and passed on by the mother) its the first and only instance of the disease in my family. So rules of reproduction based on genetics isnt a very useful tool when all is said and done.

Poor kids often grow up with high morals and familial support. Many people have grown up poor to become rich or selfsufficient later on in life. Many remain poor. In the argument of parenting both rich and poor can fail. Is Michael Jackson or OJ simpson really more deserving of fatherhood than my husband? Or Britany Spears and and Nicole Richie better equipped to support their children than I am? Financially sure but imagine Snookis babies emotional problems... The argument doesnt work because socioeconomics are not the sole determinents of good parenting.
 
Yes they will. Your example, a shelter, is not the same as a private home. I should have included private space, consistent shelter and knowledge of other animals nearby. With those things, an animal will "love" and be a "companion" even to an abuser.

Why do you think foster homes exist for animals? Often, it is to rehabilitate frightened or aggressive animals who have been abused, so they can be adopted out to a person who may not be able to deal with an animal with those sorts of issues. They will eat, but it takes a lot of time and specific effort to get them to change their behavior towards people. They won't simply start liking you just because you provide food.

It is a proven reality that a lot of animals do have emotions, though the breadth of them is usually more limited than humans to varying degrees depending on the species. Cats and dogs do display and feel affection, anxiety, depression (which often comes when their primary caretaker is absent, even if they are still being cared for by someone else), and loyalty. I find it strange that you of all people would deny that animals have any feelings at all.

Thus, the defining relationship between you and your animal is ownership, not an obligation to help all animals.

What are you talking about? When did I say anything about an obligation to help all animals? And how does providing care make me own a living creature?

Imaginary friends, through anthropomorphizing, is not healthy for ones social development.

People with pets tend to be happier and calmer, as well as having certain health benefits like better blood pressure. You're wrong. :shrug:
 
Look, you keep doing the "what are you talking about" thing, so I'm just gonna make this simple one more time:

1. An animal DOES NOT consciously decide to be your "companion" based on anything about you whatsoever. Pretending one is special because an animal thinks so is pathetic.

2. Imaginary friends are counter-productive to the development of normal social interaction.

3. An obligation to animals, animal rights or any other incarnation of non-anthropocentrism is not an excuse or reason to own an animal. Blaming the ownership (or, enslavement) of an animal on a need to help animals is a false claim. Many have such an obligation and do not own pets.
 
It would be voluntary. If they want a check, get sterilized. That is not coercion. They don't HAVE TO take the check.
That is coercion. Needy people trading their fertility for food is coercive.
 
Look, you keep doing the "what are you talking about" thing, so I'm just gonna make this simple one more time:

1. An animal DOES NOT consciously decide to be your "companion" based on anything about you whatsoever. Pretending one is special because an animal thinks so is pathetic.

Where did I say it's a "decision?" Hell, I don't even think humans usually decide that, in most cases.

2. Imaginary friends are counter-productive to the development of normal social interaction.

How are animals imaginary? And please provide refutation to the proven fact that many animals -- including cats and dogs -- do have feelings.

3. An obligation to animals, animal rights or any other incarnation of non-anthropocentrism is not an excuse or reason to own an animal. Blaiming the ownership of an animal on a need to help animals is a false claim. Many have such an obligation and do not own pets.

Where have I claimed I have a cat because of an obligation to help animals? Seriously, whose posts are you reading? They obviously aren't mine.

I notice you don't address any of the actual arguments I bring up. You simply keep repeating the same meaningless statements.
 
That is coercion. Needy people trading their fertility for food is coercive.

It's not coercion. It does not fit with the legal definition, as there is no use of force or threats. It is simply a contingency of the benefit program.
 
How are animals imaginary?


Your confusion is simply too much for me. I believe I've been clear enough, logical enough and plain enough in my presentation of the facts. If one cannot follow what I have presented and, for some reason, it is beyond grasp, then there's not much more I can do.

"Animals are imaginary"? hahaha wtf Talk about lost without hope. I get the feeling I've been here before, with you.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom