• 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
Fiddytree said:
That's exactly what it is. When you threaten benefits being lost unless they agree to have their bodies permanently altered in such a way as to never have the ability to have children, that is coercion.
Click to expand...

You people act as if welfare recipients are entitled to any benefits at all. I'll ask again: why should I pay for other people to breed?

Secondly, they are being given a choice whether or not to be sterilized. No one has a gun to their heads forcing them. Not coercion.
 
Alyssa said:
You people act as if welfare recipients are entitled to any benefits at all. I'll ask again: why should I pay for other people to breed?

Secondly, they are being given a choice whether or not to be sterilized. No one has a gun to their heads forcing them. Not coercion.
Click to expand...

You people? Who would that be?

Here's a choice. Mother of children on welfare can't currently survive without the benefits. You say, alright..here's a choice. You either become homeless, starving, and unable to support your children at all....or you let our doctors get inside there and prevent you from ever again becoming a mother.

What a choice.
 
Alyssa said:
You people act as if welfare recipients are entitled to any benefits at all. I'll ask again: why should I pay for other people to breed?

Secondly, they are being given a choice whether or not to be sterilized. No one has a gun to their heads forcing them. Not coercion.
Click to expand...

A mother with a gun to her head in the form of permanently giving up her fertility or feeding her child is not coercion?
 
ChrisL said:
1. Well they wouldn't be included. It is a separate entity than DCYF, though some individuals might collect both.
2. Why? What bad could come from using long-term birth control? The pros are that people won't be having more children that they cannot afford. If you think about, that is what is truly cruel, bringing children into the world that you cannot support, which also in a lot of instances leads to child abuse/neglect situations.
Click to expand...

1. You're still targeting the lower socio-economic chain, a large number of which have been already targeted by eugenic practices for generations. This is still outrageous.

2. Is that society's call? They couldn't get it right 100 years ago, they won't get it correct now either.
 
Gina said:
A mother with a gun to her head in the form of permanently giving up her fertility or feeding her child is not coercion?
Click to expand...

No, not when she expects someone else to support them...
 
Fiddytree said:
You people? Who would that be?

Here's a choice. Mother of children on welfare can't currently survive without the benefits. You say, alright..here's a choice. You either become homeless, starving, and unable to support your children at all....or you let our doctors get inside there and prevent you from ever again becoming a mother.

What a choice.
Click to expand...

Imagine a world where people didn't have children they couldn't afford. How unfair. :roll:

In a society that didn't hand out entitlements out like herpes at a frat party, her kids would likely die anyhow. It's real simple: people need to support the kids they already have instead of having more for everyone else to support. It's rather sad that this concept is considered "coercion."
 
ChrisL said:
Well, who says it would have to have social workers? As it is now we just give them money, food stamps and housing. Why not just have shelters that are more like housing units with some kind of food delivery service? They don't really need a babysitter per se; just to ensure that the money is being spent on shelter, clothing and food for themselves and the children. I think that was the idea DA had.
Click to expand...

In order to run any facility like that, there has to be a staff to accept or deny entry. There has to be maintenance of the buildings. If you expect them to leave, they have to have, as Viktyr said, case managers and social workers to help in getting people back on their feet and out the doors.
 
Alyssa said:
Imagine a world where people didn't have children they couldn't afford. How unfair. :roll:
Click to expand...

I did. I started researching the late 19th century and early 20th century. That was their goal too, advocating draconian measures as well. That's why I am drastically opposed to such measures being imposed ever again.
 
Fiddytree said:
I did. I started researching the late 19th century and early 20th century. That was their goal too, advocating draconian measures as well. That's why I am drastically opposed to such measures being imposed ever again.
Click to expand...

So you believe these people are entitled to government hand outs, no expectations, no strings attached.

That mentality is just as dangerous as eugenics.
 
Alyssa said:
So you believe these people are entitled to government hand outs, no expectations, no strings attached.

That mentality is just as dangerous as eugenics.
Click to expand...

They have strings attached. They just don't have crazy people wanting to gut them up like a 6th grade biology classroom.

If you think that is just as dangerous as massive sterilizations, then I suggest you find a time machine to 1930s Germany and stay put.
 
Last edited:
Alyssa said:
Having children is a right. Getting government support for them is not.
Click to expand...

We as a nation, cannot allow children starving in the streets and that is the alternative. Is that what you are advocating? Such a dire choice, is coercion.
 
Gina said:
Indeed it is coercion. As soon as it becomes either/or.
Click to expand...

If adding a contingency to a benefit is coercion, then what would you call it if FedGov were to simply just end the benefit program?
 
Gina said:
We as a nation, cannot allow children starving in the streets and that is the alternative.

Is that what you are advocating? Such a dire choice, is coercion.
Click to expand...

No, that would be called a false dichotomy. Federal welfare or "children starving in the street" (the overused liberal emotional appeal) is the biggest false choice of all time.
 
Fiddytree said:
They have strings attached. They just don't have crazy people wanting to gut them up like a 6th grade biology classroom.

If you think that is just as dangerous as massive sterilizations, then I suggest you find a time machine to 1930s Germany and stay put.
Click to expand...

You have heard of sub-dermal birth control, I'm sure. Then again, maybe not...
 
Neomalthusian said:
If adding a contingency to a benefit is coercion, then what would you call it if FedGov were to simply just end the benefit program?
Click to expand...

Unconscionable.

Neomalthusian said:
No, that would be called a false dichotomy. Federal welfare or "children starving in the street" (the overused liberal emotional appeal) is the biggest false choice of all time.
Click to expand...

Then please tell me the true choice?
 
Gina said:
Unconscionable.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just call them both "unconscionable" then, rather than equating the former with legal terminology that implies wrongdoing?

It's one thing to shriek in horror at the thought of freebie restrictions, but it's another to repeatedly insist it's criminal. It's not criminal.

Then please tell me the true choice?
Click to expand...

There are many mechanisms by which we could prevent children from literally starving to death in the streets. There's no dichotomous This or That choice.

Your emotional appeal has been far too overused to try to defend federal welfare. Federal welfare benefits are not the fabric that holds the nation together. You said "we as a nation cannot allow children to starve" and I agree with you, children starving in public is unacceptable in our culture. Where I disagree with you is that it's either federal welfare programs or public starvation to death, which has been your and many liberals' self-evidently absurd appeal for a long time now. You should stop using it.
 
Gina said:
We as a nation, cannot allow children starving in the streets and that is the alternative. Is that what you are advocating? Such a dire choice, is coercion.
Click to expand...

No. It's not. The options are simple: get support for your children/ don't have more that you can afford. I think the mentality people have these days is down right dangerous: it's this "something for nothing attitude." No one is entitled to anything. Life doesn't guarantee that people will be fed and clothed, and yet in 21st century America, even the fattest, sickest, most unhealthy people among us are guaranteed not only the essentials, but also comforts and luxuries. I might be able to go along with that much, but this mentality that people should not only get seemingly infinite entitlements, but also be free to birth more children for society to support is ridiculous.

Putting a cap on someone's baby maker in exchange for doing what THEY SHOULD be doing is reasonable. If those same people were born before LBJ and his fellow Fabian socialites turned America into an idealistic mecca of government tit suckers, their children would have likely died at birth. Most of these wimmin don't want their boobs to sag from breastfeeding afterall.

All I advocate is at least some level of personal responsibility. And people think it's coercion.
 
Alyssa said:
Putting a cap on someone's baby maker in exchange for doing what THEY SHOULD be doing is reasonable. If those same people were born before LBJ and his fellow Fabian socialites turned America into an idealistic mecca of government tit suckers, their children would have likely died at birth. Most of these wimmin don't want their boobs to sag from breastfeeding afterall.

All I advocate is at least some level of personal responsibility. And people think it's coercion.
Click to expand...

That's not personal responsibility. That's thrusting unconscionable control over someone's body and making you God. Personal responsibility my bum. You whine about Fabian socialists (misunderstanding the concept completely), but all you sound like is a reincarnated eugenicist.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Why don't you just call them both "unconscionable" then, rather than equating the former with legal terminology that implies wrongdoing?

It's one thing to shriek in horror at the thought of freebie restrictions, but it's another to repeatedly insist it's criminal. It's not criminal.
Click to expand...

I didn't use unconscionable as a legal term.

1
: not guided or controlled by conscience : unscrupulous <an unconscionable villain>
2
a : excessive, unreasonable <found an unconscionable number of defects in the car>
b : shockingly unfair or unjust <unconscionable sales practices>
Click to expand...

That's how I used it. I didn't say it was criminal.

There are many mechanisms by which we could prevent children from literally starving to death in the streets. There's no dichotomous This or That choice.

Your emotional appeal has been far too overused to try to defend federal welfare. Federal welfare benefits are not the fabric that holds the nation together. You said "we as a nation cannot allow children to starve" and I agree with you, children starving in public is unacceptable in our culture. Where I disagree with you is that it's either federal welfare programs or public starvation to death, which has been your and many liberals' self-evidently absurd appeal for a long time now. You should stop using it.
Click to expand...

The money for children to eat has to come from somewhere and homelessness is a very real possibility without government aide and then starving is not far off, while homeless.

I've dealt with homeless teens and young adults who didn't have enough or anything to eat. I've taken them in because they were literally sleeping on park benches and starving. Homeless shelters are full and have limitations that don't provide a stay long enough for them to get back on their feet, especially in an economy like this.
 
Gina said:
I didn't use unconscionable as a legal term. That's how I used it. I didn't say it was criminal.
Click to expand...

I was talking about coercion. If attaching a contingency to a benefit is coercion, then just ending the program is... what? Theft? A federal benefit never inherently the rightful property of the beneficiary. Any benefit program could end, the same way any government job could be eliminated.

The money for children to eat has to come from somewhere
Click to expand...

Apparently not just from somewhere, but specifically from a federal benefit program... or else they'll starve to death in the streets. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom