• 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
a351 said:
Should've stopped there. Expectations of the parents don't come into the picture at all.

I'm implying that your best course of action would be to contact your local congressman and urge him to tear down these safety nets you so detest. That's well within the law and slightly more practical than some of the suggestions tossed about here.
Click to expand...

I asked for your thoughts relating to the question, not what you think myself or anyone else should do about the issue...
 
Objective-J said:
didnt YOU say drug abuse while pregnant is NOT illegal in all states?
Well id support making it illegal in all states :shrug:

as far as PREVENTION i said probably none, its not pulling teeth you just arent getting the answer you want.
There are probably few things id support in prevention, not a legal path id want the government to take or be involved in.
Click to expand...

My god. You cannot answer a simple question and are being completely evasive.

Last try to get a specific answer from you. Literally what would you support happening in the case of a pregnant woman who is addicted to/abusing substances? What precisely would happen to her that would protect her fetus from further abuse? Imprisonment for example? Involuntary commitment? What?

You give suggestions and ill tell you if id support it cause i got nothing.
Click to expand...

Jesus. Back and forth, back and forth. You would not support anything that you can think of to prevent fetal harm... but you think it's wrong and would support "steps being taken..." Then you just suggest it should simply be illegal, as though that will change anything... now you're saying "I got nothing."

I'm gonna have to give up. This is a waste of time trying to get you to comprehend and answer a simple question of what should be done specifically to prevent an addict from damaging her fetus.
 
a351 said:
Should've stopped there. Expectations of the parents don't come into the picture at all.

I'm implying that your best course of action would be to contact your local congressman and urge him to tear down these safety nets you so detest. That's well within the law and slightly more practical than some of the suggestions tossed about here.
Click to expand...

Most people don't have a problem with giving charity and a helping hand. However, we expect a person who is receiving help to exercise common sense, and if they cannot do that then perhaps they need a little push in the right direction, so to speak.

I don't want to do away with the welfare program. I just want people to use it the way it was meant to be used, which is a temporary helping hand for your existing family; not to support you indefinitely while you continue to have children and bring them into a bad situation. That's just dumb.
 
Henrin said:
I agree completely there is no right to welfare and as I have told you before I'm against the welfare state. However, people do have a right to make these kind of decisions on their body.
Click to expand...

People seem to forget that nothing in life is guaranteed. Not even your next breath. So how is it reasonable in this world to be able to have as many children as you'd like without the consequences involved? People should be free to have how ever many children they are capable of supporting without gov assistance. No more.
 
Neomalthusian said:
1.)My god. You cannot answer a simple question and are being completely evasive.

2.)Last try to get a specific answer from you. Literally what would you support happening in the case of a pregnant woman who is addicted to/abusing substances? What precisely would happen to her that would protect her fetus from further abuse? Imprisonment for example? Involuntary commitment? What?



3.)Jesus. Back and forth, back and forth. You would not support anything that you can think of to prevent fetal harm...
4.)but you think it's wrong and would support "steps being taken..." Then you just suggest it should simply be illegal, as though that will change anything... now you're saying "I got nothing."

5.)I'm gonna have to give up. This is a waste of time trying to get you to comprehend and answer a simple question of what should be done specifically to prevent an addict from damaging her fetus.
Click to expand...

1.) this is 100% false

how could an answer be any more clear than probably none? LMAO

2.) gee look, you are doing what i asked since my answer isnt changing simply because you want it too, GOOD BOY lol
BUT you feel AGAIN

like i already said, as far as PREVENTION is concerned NOTHING, i cant think of anything id want the government to do.

what arent you getting LMAO

3.) there is no back and fourth, its you begging for me to change my answer
4.) yes step after birth but not before it :shrug:
babie dies or is still born due to drug abuse, yes prison or confiscation of child etc but not before birth. Have no clue what you dont get
5.) I gave the answer like 5 times, you dont like LOL thats your fault not mine.
 
Alyssa said:
bzzzzzt.. wrong.

The security I'm referring to is food, shelter, and the right to be comfortable among other things. This is the mindset of 21st century America. Sit back and relax. Someone else will get it.
Click to expand...
Well, in that case, what freedom does a welfare recipient cough up in exchange for their bounty?
 
ChrisL said:
Hmmm. That's actually a good point. I haven't thought of that angle yet. But I could still say that they are using public assistance; and WE are not obligated to support them on their terms. WE do it out of the kindness of our hearts and sympathy and because we want a healthy society. There is nothing wrong with stipulations in order to receive the benefits IMO.
Click to expand...
How about instead of micro managing citizens we just put limits on how long people receive assistance? Seems a lot easier if you ask me.

That can happen to anyone who takes birth control, and they would be under the care of a physician. Most of the time, complications are relatively minor. Serious complications are relatively rare. If there are complications, there are MANY methods to choose from. If the rare instance should occur where there are no viable birth control options, exceptions could be made, and a box of condoms wouldn't hurt.
Click to expand...
If a person is required to do something as a condition in a contract then it is the Governements responsibility to pay for any health hazards inflicted by the contract. Its simple liability law.




So, then everybody's happy. What's the problem? The person is not bringing more children into a bad situation and is not using additional public assistance.
Click to expand...
And so its ok for a person to endlessly be on government assistance as long as they dont have any more kids?


The military WORKS to earn their money. They give back in a BIG way. That is not even remotely comparable. :shock:
Click to expand...
Yes they give in a big way but their kids do not. Why should we have to pay for their kids? Let me ask you something. How many people on government assistance are exploiting it? And of those exploiters how many are actively having more children?
 
Objective-J said:
LMAO

GOOD BOY lol

LMAO

:shrug:
LOL .
Click to expand...

If the gov offers someone money to get their tubes tied, and they take it, that does not equal force. The fact is, the poor are always disadvantaged and always will be. However, receiving money for merely existing and not being saddled with even more kids is an advantage. Plain and simple. At no time in history has it been so easy to survive than in today's America. Take stroll through our supermarkets and look at all the people who would be dead if it weren't for handouts and electric carts. As a society, we have become weak and self entitled. This isn't a statement of judgment as many people will claim, but instead an observation. This is not sustainable.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
How about instead of micro managing citizens we just put limits on how long people receive assistance? Seems a lot easier if you ask me.
Click to expand...

We already have that, and what happens is the person has another child, and therefore the "time allotted" starts all over again once the new child is conceived. The pregnancy, any complications that occur during the pregnancy to either the mother or fetus, the birthing and delivery and any complications, and then the new baby - all paid for with taxpayer dollars.


If a person is required to do something as a condition in a contract then it is the Governements responsibility to pay for any health hazards inflicted by the contract. Its simple liability law.
Click to expand...

They (or WE) already do that whenever someone is collecting public assistance. Their medical care is already paid for. If there are any pregnancy or child-birth/bearing complications, we are responsible for that too. :shrug:



And so its ok for a person to endlessly be on government assistance as long as they dont have any more kids?
Click to expand...

Of course not. The original idea for public assistance was temporary help during financial hardship. It was NEVER meant for people to depend upon for support like some do. It was never meant to allow people to have MORE children that they cannot afford. That was never the concept. Educational opportunities abound when you are collecting, and a lot for free. The idea is to better yourself so that you can be independent, not to make your situation even WORSE than when you began.

Yes they give in a big way but their kids do not. Why should we have to pay for their kids? Let me ask you something. How many people on government assistance are exploiting it? And of those exploiters how many are actively having more children?
Click to expand...

We don't pay for their kids. They do. They work for their money and use that money to pay for their own children. Working for the government is completely different than receiving public assistance. Stop trying to be coy. It isn't working. :lol:
 
Alyssa said:
If the gov offers someone money to get their tubes tied, and they take it, that does not equal force. The fact is, the poor are always disadvantaged and always will be. However, receiving money for merely existing and not being saddled with even more kids is an advantage. Plain and simple. At no time in history has it been so easy to survive than in today's America. Take stroll through our supermarkets and look at all the people who would be dead if it weren't for handouts and electric carts. As a society, we have become weak and self entitled. This isn't a statement of judgment as many people will claim, but instead an observation. This is not sustainable.
Click to expand...

you are mixing multiple conversation sorry and you dont know what you are talking about when it comes to what i have ACTUALLY said

so please address things i actually said in the context i said them so it makes sense instead of a rambling that is meaningless to any points i have made

could also finally answer the question of whats the punishment for having a kid without a license.
 
Objective-J said:
you are mixing multiple conversation sorry and you dont know what you are talking about when it comes to what i have ACTUALLY said

so please address things i actually said in the context i said them so it makes sense instead of a rambling that is meaningless to any points i have made

could also finally answer the question of whats the punishment for having a kid without a license.
Click to expand...

uh huh. Your concession is duly noted. Thanks.
 
Alyssa said:
uh huh. Your concession is duly noted. Thanks.
Click to expand...

yep thats what i thought, STILL didnt even answer the question :laughat:
 
Alyssa said:
People seem to forget that nothing in life is guaranteed. Not even your next breath. So how is it reasonable in this world to be able to have as many children as you'd like without the consequences involved? People should be free to have how ever many children they are capable of supporting without gov assistance. No more.
Click to expand...

I would much rather not support past a certain amount of children than what is being talked about in here.
 
I voted NO in the OP poll. I do not support punishing people for having kids, nor do I support requiring a license. This would make the fourth time that I've point this out.

Thanks again.
 
Alyssa said:
When you receive money from an entity, you are beholden to that entity. So what can people do to preserve their freedom? Achieve self sufficiency at all costs.
Click to expand...
Self sufficiency usually entails receiving money from an entity of some form or another. Using that definition a welfare check is no more slavery than a regular ole' job I'm afraid. Save the "security for liberty" quote for a Patriot Act thread or something.
 
Alyssa said:
Eliminating welfare is a superior approach. However, ALL government entitlements need to go- not just for the low income people.
Click to expand...

Welfare for the poor is actually just welfare for the rich, so yeah, both should go.
 
Alyssa said:
Eliminating welfare is a superior approach. However, ALL government entitlements need to go- not just for the low income people.
Click to expand...

I don't want to see welfare end. I want to see it used as it was meant to be used, as a way to get temporary help when someone falls upon bad times and a way to even better oneself so that they can escape the cycle of poverty. I am totally sympathetic to someone who needs a helping hand because they fell on hard times or perhaps even made a mistake or an error in judgment. I don't believe in enabling irresponsible behavior though.
 
a351 said:
Self sufficiency usually entails receiving money from an entity of some form or another. Using that definition a welfare check is no more slavery than a regular ole' job I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

No, self-sufficiency is the result of one's productive output, while dependency is the reliance on others productive output to provide you with your "perceived" needs...
 
a351 said:
Self sufficiency usually entails receiving money from an entity of some form or another. Using that definition a welfare check is no more slavery than a regular ole' job I'm afraid. Save the "security for liberty" quote for a Patriot Act thread or something.
Click to expand...

Say wut?

Self sufficiency is the opposite of what you just said. Please research the concept a bit.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't want to see welfare end. I want to see it used as it was meant to be used, as a way to get temporary help when someone falls upon bad times and a way to even better oneself so that they can escape the cycle of poverty. I am totally sympathetic to someone who needs a helping hand because they fell on hard times or perhaps even made a mistake or an error in judgment. I don't believe in enabling irresponsible behavior though.
Click to expand...

Some type of localized help from the community would be ideal. I've been in bad times so I get it too. But this current system is terrible.
 
a351 said:
Self sufficiency usually entails receiving money from an entity of some form or another. Using that definition a welfare check is no more slavery than a regular ole' job I'm afraid. Save the "security for liberty" quote for a Patriot Act thread or something.
Click to expand...

When you are self sufficient you are giving back to the community and contributing to the taxpayer base. When you are dependent for survival you are no longer a contributing member of society. That is the difference. Dependence on the government shouldn't be encouraged or enabled.
 
Alyssa said:
Say wut?

Self sufficiency is the opposite of what you just said. Please research the concept a bit.
Click to expand...
Let's put this in simpler terms. I receive a check from my employer. A company. An entity. I am no more beholden to said employer than a welfare recipient is to the federal branch, nor is either of us sacrificing our individual freedom. Just drop that whole analogy and move on.
 
Alyssa said:
Some type of localized help from the community would be ideal. I've been in bad times so I get it too. But this current system is terrible.
Click to expand...

That is kind of what I liked about DA60's idea about community-based shelters, kind of like housing but on a larger scale where all basic necessities are provided, doing away completely with the current check and food stamps system. Then it is almost assured that the money is being spent on an as-needed basis and on a temporary basis, of course, until a person can get back on their feet without making their situation worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom