• 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
Alyssa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Plain and simple, the government doesn't have a right, should never have the right, to force medical procedure on us, no matter how upset you are about welfare.

That social experimentation was tried, abused and ended.

What are we doing now to prevent unplanned pregnancy? Cutting services and closing Planned Parenthood. If one is serious about reducing unplanned births, then one should be a strong advocate of the government increasing these services and making them available a low cost or free as possible. When offered, many low income women in a study presented in 2012, took the long term options given them.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.



Apparently not just from somewhere, but specifically from a federal benefit program... or else they'll starve to death in the streets. :roll:
Click to expand...

Alright then. How many do you think would "choose" sterilization as opposed to no welfare?
 
Gina said:
What are we doing now to prevent unplanned pregnancy? Cutting services and closing Planned Parenthood. If one is serious about reducing unplanned births, then one should be a strong advocate of the government increasing these services and making them available a low cost or free as possible. When offered, many low income women in a study presented in 2012, took the long term options given them.
Click to expand...

Compared to so many of the things the federal government is doing, prevention of unwanted and unplanned pregnancy should be among the last to go. That's my opinion, and it may not resonate as strongly with other libertarians, but I agree with you on this at least, Gina, for the most part.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.[/qote}

I was not using coerce or coercion in a legal sense either:

Definition of COERCE
1
: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2
: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3
: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
— co·erc·ible adjective
Click to expand...

A contingency or condition rises to coercion when not accepting it has a dire consequence.

That consequence, is unconscionable, not theft.

Apparently not just from somewhere, but specifically from a federal benefit program... or else they'll starve to death in the streets. :roll:
Click to expand...

Children are fed using food stamps and welfare. End it, and the won't be fed enough.
Click to expand...
 
Fiddytree said:
Alright then. How many do you think would "choose" sterilization as opposed to no welfare?
Click to expand...

Hard to say for sure, but I think many would, ultimately. Recipients of the charity I shared a link to in post #8 of this thread have chosen sterilization not even in exchange for ongoing welfare, but for a mere few hundred dollars.

Project Prevention
 
Neomalthusian said:
Recipients of the charity I shared a link to in post #8 of this thread have chosen sterilization not even in exchange for ongoing welfare, but for a mere few hundred dollars.

Project Prevention
Click to expand...

Doesn't that suggest 1) that without aid, they would be that desperate 2) Indict the practice of sterility as punishment for being in the position to begin with.

I'm glad you linked to that, seeing as how project prevention is a neo-eugenicist front.
 
Fiddytree said:
Doesn't that suggest 1) that without aid, they would be that desperate
Click to expand...

They might be desperate even with the aid. All the more reason not to bring more children into the world...

2) Indict the practice of sterility as punishment for being in the position to begin with.
Click to expand...

If you perceive the act of voluntary sterilization to be self-punishment, that's your opinion. Others might see it as an opportunity to have sex without risk of pregnancy for the rest of their lives, which could be liberating. And if doing so also happened to open up other opportunities, I think some would see it as a reward or blessing.
 
Neomalthusian said:
They might be desperate even with the aid. All the more reason not to bring more children into the world...



If you perceive the act of voluntary sterilization to be self-punishment, that's your opinion. Others might see it as an opportunity to have sex without risk of pregnancy for the rest of their lives, which could be liberating. And if doing so also happened to open up other opportunities, I think some would see it as a reward or blessing.
Click to expand...

All I see here is eugenicist trash. If it was so "liberating" why the cloak and dagger approach? Why is it targeting only the lower socio-economic population?
 
Fiddytree said:
All I see here is eugenicist trash. If it was so "liberating" why the cloak and dagger approach? Why is it targeting only the lower socio-economic population?
Click to expand...

Because they're least likely to have the means to care for children. Children fundamentally have rights to all their basic needs being met by the guardian(s). Therefore I think continuing to shun all efforts to cut back on reproduction among those who cannot meet those basic needs is not only foolish, but passively neglectful/abusive on society's part.

You can call it "eugenicist trash" all you want, it's a person's own choice to become sterilized, and Project Prevention is one example of it being encouraged already (albeit privately). I just happen to think it's a good enough idea that we should institute the practice more broadly.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Because they're least likely to have the means to care for children. Children fundamentally have rights to all their basic needs being met by the guardian(s). Therefore I think continuing to shun all efforts to cut back on reproduction among those who cannot meet those basic needs is not only foolish, but passively neglectful/abusive on society's part.

You can call it "eugenicist trash" all you want, it's a person's own choice to become sterilized, and Project Prevention is one example of it being encouraged already (albeit privately). I just happen to think it's a good enough idea that we should institute the practice more broadly.
Click to expand...

A person impaired by a drug habit.

The woman who runs that "charity" doesn't even care if they use the $300 on drugs. To my mind, that's exploiting a debilitated person.

I sincerely hope, the practice dies.
 
Gina said:
A person impaired by a drug habit.
Click to expand...

This person should be OK to have kids, eh?

The woman who runs that "charity" doesn't even care if they use the $300 on drugs. To my mind, that's exploiting a debilitated person.
Click to expand...

I lot of liberals don't seem to care if all the welfare help out there enables people to devote more resources toward their drug habit. To my mind, welfare does at least as much harm to active addicts as this charity, except this charity prevents harm in the process as well, whereas welfare doesn't.

How would you feel if you saw a mother injecting its baby with heroin or force-feeding it alcohol? Would that mother's reproductive rights be more important than the baby's right not to have that harm done it it?

I sincerely hope, the practice dies.
Click to expand...

I know your view. Reproduction is sacrosanct. FASD, substance-induced static encephalopathy, babies born addicted to drugs, etc. are all less important than people's fertility.

I sincerely hope Project Prevention is promulgated and replicated all over the world. I plan to donate.
 
Last edited:
I am quite the modest man, so I would propose that breeding licenses be restricted to those whose IQ exceeds their weight.

Building a better tomorrow through smarter, smaller people, you know.
 
Gardener said:
I am quite the modest man, so I would propose that breeding licenses be restricted to those whose IQ exceeds their weight.

Building a better tomorrow through smarter, smaller people, you know.
Click to expand...

Interesting slogan. Considering the resultant fat rich/smart people and skinny poor/unintelligent people, I'd say the slogan could be "Look the part." ;)

Aw man, even I feel bad after that one.
 
Neomalthusian said:
This person should be OK to have kids, eh?



I lot of liberals don't seem to care if all the welfare help out there enables people to devote more resources toward their drug habit. To my mind, welfare does at least as much harm to active addicts as this charity, except this charity prevents harm in the process as well, whereas welfare doesn't.

How would you feel if you saw a mother injecting its baby with heroin or force-feeding it alcohol? Would that mother's reproductive rights be more important than the baby's right not to have that harm done it it?



I know your view. Reproduction is sacrosanct. FASD, substance-induced static encephalopathy, babies born addicted to drugs, etc. are all less important than people's fertility.

I sincerely hope Project Prevention is promulgated and replicated all over the world. I plan to donate.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's like some people could care less about the poor babies born into poverty, neglectful and abusive situations just as long as the woman has her right to reproduce or abort.

It's obvious that some people care much more about a woman's "reproductive rights" than bringing a child into a miserable situation.

Apparently, some people are just able to overlook such things and say to hell with the children and to hell with everyone else because NOTHING else is as important as that individual's reproductive rights. That's bull****!
 
Gina said:
Plain and simple, the government doesn't have a right, should never have the right, to force medical procedure on us, no matter how upset you are about welfare.

That social experimentation was tried, abused and ended.
Click to expand...

Welfare as it is now has been tried and abused as well. Time for a different tactic.
 
Here are some interesting stats about welfare and welfare recipients. These stats have been verified as of 2012.

Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain

Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare 4,300,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 46,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 5,600,000
Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 %
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion

Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %

Welfare Statistics
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 9

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%

Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11
 
ChrisL said:
Here are some interesting stats about welfare and welfare recipients. These stats have been verified as of 2012.

Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain

Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare 4,300,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 46,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 5,600,000
Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 %
Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion

Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %

Welfare Statistics
Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 9

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%

Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11
Click to expand...
Seems to me that one important stat was left out.

Number of children in welfare families. 1.9

Compare that to the number of children families have who are not on welfare....

Yep it is the same 1.9
 
ChrisL said:
Honestly, it's like some people could care less about the poor babies born into poverty, neglectful and abusive situations just as long as the woman has her right to reproduce or abort.

It's obvious that some people care much more about a woman's "reproductive rights" than bringing a child into a miserable situation.

Apparently, some people are just able to overlook such things and say to hell with the children and to hell with everyone else because NOTHING else is as important as that individual's reproductive rights. That's bull****!
Click to expand...


Speaking for myself and I am sure there are many more of us who are very concerned about the babies born in poverty.


I posted links to a couple of articles about long term birth control for both men and women.


I will support offering and encouraging long term birth control but I will not support taking away ones right to privacy
Or to body soverinty.
 
minnie616 said:
Seems to me that one important stat was left out.

Number of children in welfare families. 1.9

Compare that to the number of children families have who are not on welfare....

Yep it is the same 1.9
Click to expand...

I heard the average for people not on welfare was 1.86. That is NOT the same. Also, that is really irrelevant. MANY welfare recipients have MORE than 1 or 2 children. That is only an average. Therefore, irrelevant. My point is mandatory long-term BC for people who are currently receiving welfare benefits. Now what is the problem with that?

av·er·age
/ˈav(ə)rij/
Noun
The result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities; the mean.
 
ChrisL said:
My point is mandatory long-term BC for people who are currently receiving welfare benefits. Now what is the problem with that?
Click to expand...

If you create a law making it mandatory for a group of people to do something (wear your seat belt, carry car insurance, etc.) then you have to have a way to regulate it. Policemen can check if you have insurance on your car or if you were or weren't wearing your seat belt. How would government officials determine if you were following the BC law?
 
Josie said:
If you create a law making it mandatory for a group of people to do something (wear your seat belt, carry car insurance, etc.) then you have to have a way to regulate it. Policemen can check if you have insurance on your car or if you were or weren't wearing your seat belt. How would government officials determine if you were following the BC law?
Click to expand...

Like I said, when you are on welfare, it is quite easy to track when you apply for services for any additional children. Of course, they CAN have additional children, just not get services for them. It's actually a choice. Continue to receive services and use mandatory birth control, or not.
 
ChrisL said:
Like I said, when you are on welfare, it is quite easy to track when you apply for services for any additional children. Of course, they CAN have additional children, just not get services for them. It's actually a choice. Continue to receive services and use mandatory birth control, or not.
Click to expand...

So those kids just won't eat.
 
Or if someone goes off their mandatory BC and gets pregnant, then take the child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom