• 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
You see it as a CHOICE but I am pretty sure the Catholic Church will see it as an infringement of religious rights.

lol please don't go there. People are free to use religion as an excuse not to use BC if they want to, so long as they fund their own stupidity.
 
No, I was right on the mark. You want to pretend that a being a wage earner is somehow comparable to getting services at someone else's dime. To do this you have to ignore why the wages are given to worker, what has happened with welfare in the past and in the present and just how paying for something for others in such a way as welfare makes them more like children, not like workers. Tell me, what do think happens when someone is paying for your survival? Who do you think has the control in such a situation? I will give you a hint, its not the person getting something. If you are not pretending here than you just don't understand ownership, control structures and just how wages behave.

Exactly.

A reminder to those who are somehow confused by the definition of wage EARNER: welfare recipients earn nothing. They are not entitled to welfare because they do not earn it. If stipulations are put on welfare, those stipulations do not equal coercion because one) no one is entitled to welfare and 2) because they are given a choice. And don't give me crap about children starving in the streets. Enough with the outrageous hyperbole, thanks very much.
 
Perhaps I am assuming too much. You clearly do not comprehend the definition of force. If someone already has children they cannot afford, requiring that they get their tubes tied before they receive more funding is hardly "fascist" as some people seem to believe.

These government tit suckers (hyperbole) are draining the coffers dry (more hyperbole)right along with the corporate bail outs and illegal wars. The government needs to be downsized. And people apparently need incentive to do what even animals manage: maintain their own family.

People should not be free to breed (still more hyperbole)while expecting a hand out.

It is not punitive. Most of these people would be better off with less children anyhow, not to mention the savings for everyone else.

:roll: Poor strategy. Hyperbole adds nothing to your argument.

There are many ways force can be exerted and surely as a parent, you know that they are not all physical. You must present your kids with unpalatable choices to get them to do what you want and therefore know what a valuable tool that kind of force is. This choice is more than unpalatable and the results are physically permanent, which is something a parent would be arrested for doing to their kids. Does that clarify how it is force? Or am I assuming too much?

A policy of fertility for food is very punitive. It's not up to you or the government to decide who is better off with more children or not. As a libertarian, that you are arguing for government to perform forced surgical procedures in exchange for benefits, is very surprising.

My statement was accurate. Forced surgical procedures are egregious, while your descriptions, as noted, are the very definition of hyperbole, having added zero to your argument except to highlight your exaggerated sense of anger.


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.

Which equates to warehousing the welfare recipients into ghettos, chris. They all live there, away from us and are thus stigmatized. I cannot think of a more defeating situation and damaging to the children.

And again, this will not save the government money. There would need to be staff, to record people going in and out. Maintenance of buildings and grounds. If you are planning on feeding them in cafeterias, then cooks and dishwashers. If you are planning on handing out food, people are needed to manage the inventory. It would be necessary to have social workers on site as well, to manage cases.
 
Oh, because the Catholics won't like it? They also don't like taxpayer funded abortions, but those happen too. :shrug:

There are no tax payer funded abortions the Hyde amendment prohibits it.
 
Last edited:
There are many ways force can be exerted and surely as a parent, you know that they are not all physical. You must present your kids with unpalatable choices to get them to do what you want and therefore know what a valuable tool that kind of force is. This choice is more than unpalatable and the results are physically permanent, which is something a parent would be arrested for doing to their kids. Does that clarify how it is force? Or am I assuming too much?

A policy of fertility for food is very punitive. It's not up to you or the government to decide who is better off with more children or not. As a libertarian, that you are arguing for government to perform forced surgical procedures in exchange for benefits, is very surprising.

My statement was accurate. Forced surgical procedures are egregious, while your descriptions, as noted, are the very definition of hyperbole, having added zero to your argument except to highlight your exaggerated sense of anger.




Which equates to warehousing the welfare recipients into ghettos, chris. They all live there, away from us and are thus stigmatized. I cannot think of a more defeating situation and damaging to the children.

And again, this will not save the government money. There would need to be staff, to record people going in and out. Maintenance of buildings and grounds. If you are planning on feeding them in cafeterias, then cooks and dishwashers. If you are planning on handing out food, people are needed to manage the inventory. It would be necessary to have social workers on site as well, to manage cases.

I've about had it with the whole "libertarians can't support this policy BS" because it's bunk. Libertarians are about choice...you steal taxpayer money, you obey the rules. Either way, you have government involvement - whether it's to enforce reproductive responsibility, or contribute to all the wasted red-tape of providing public funds to people. YOU CANNOT REMOVE GOVERNMENT FROM THIS TRANSACTION WITH EITHER ROUTE! Why is this SO hard to see?

You can be a libertarian and STILL be a meritocrat. They're not mutually exclusive.
 
I've about had it with the whole "libertarians can't support this policy BS" because it's bunk. Libertarians are about choice...you steal taxpayer money, you obey the rules. Either way, you have government involvement - whether it's to enforce reproductive responsibility, or contribute to all the wasted red-tape of providing public funds to people. YOU CANNOT REMOVE GOVERNMENT FROM THIS TRANSACTION WITH EITHER ROUTE! Why is this SO hard to see?

You can be a libertarian and STILL be a meritocrat. They're not mutually exclusive.

Please. In almost every other circumstance, you would say this is an overreach of government.
 
There are no tax payer funded abortions the Hyde amendment prohibits it.

I love how people assume they can track money used in an organization or company. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Please. In almost every other circumstance, you would say this is an overreach of government.

Hardly. I'm enough of a meritocrat to limit rights in certain situations - such as when people lack the intelligence to exercise them properly.

This is why I can't be a "true" libertarian. Some people need government to slap their hand and tell them not to do something.
 
There are many ways force can be exerted and surely as a parent, you know that they are not all physical. You must present your kids with unpalatable choices to get them to do what you want and therefore know what a valuable tool that kind of force is. This choice is more than unpalatable and the results are physically permanent, which is something a parent would be arrested for doing to their kids. Does that clarify how it is force? Or am I assuming too much?

Nope, it doesn't. Presenting people with a choice, no matter how unpleasant the effects of said choice is-- still a choice. They would not be forced to be sterilized. They would be asked to do something in return for the money they are receiving. For a change. Call it "earned income." :wink:

A policy of fertility for food is very punitive. It's not up to you or the government to decide who is better off with more children or not. As a libertarian, that you are arguing for government to perform forced surgical procedures in exchange for benefits, is very surprising.

lol "as a libertarian.." shows how people put themselves into pigeon holes with labels. If I could choose unaffiliated as a title, I would.

My statement was accurate. Forced surgical procedures are egregious, while your descriptions, as noted, are the very definition of hyperbole, having added zero to your argument except to highlight your exaggerated sense of anger.

This is rich. You calling my post hyperbolic. lulz never mind your silly examples of children starving in the streets.

There-is-no-force if one chooses a particular option and subsequently receives something as a result.



Which equates to warehousing the welfare recipients into ghettos, chris. They all live there, away from us and are thus stigmatized. I cannot think of a more defeating situation and damaging to the children.

..such as mom and baby's daddy having yet another child they cannot provide for. But you don't see that as a problem. :roll:

And again, this will not save the government money. There would need to be staff, to record people going in and out. Maintenance of buildings and grounds. If you are planning on feeding them in cafeterias, then cooks and dishwashers. If you are planning on handing out food, people are needed to manage the inventory. It would be necessary to have social workers on site as well, to manage cases.

$everal grand each month for 18 plus years is extremely expensive. There doesn't need to be staff members "to record people going in and out" and whathaveyou. The current staff would suffice. The procedure would be as followed: welfare mom goes to dhs pregnant with second child and still receiving benefits, she agrees to tubal in order to receive benefits for second child. End transaction.

Seriously. That's it.
 
Nope, it doesn't. Presenting people with a choice, no matter how unpleasant the effects of said choice is-- still a choice. They would not be forced to be sterilized. They would be asked to do something in return for the money they are receiving. For a change. Call it "earned income." :wink:



lol "as a libertarian.." shows how people put themselves into pigeon holes with labels. If I could choose unaffiliated as a title, I would.



This is rich. You calling my post hyperbolic. lulz never mind your silly examples of children starving in the streets.

There-is-no-force if one chooses a particular option and subsequently receives something as a result.





..such as mom and baby's daddy having yet another child they cannot provide for. But you don't see that as a problem. :roll:



$everal grand each month for 18 plus years is extremely expensive. There doesn't need to be staff members "to record people going in and out" and whathaveyou. The current staff would suffice. The procedure would be as followed: welfare mom goes to dhs pregnant with second child and still receiving benefits, she agrees to tubal in order to receive benefits for second child. End transaction.

Seriously. That's it.

I guess it was too much to ask. :shrug:

You can choose undisclosed or private.

Your words are an exaggeration, while I have the sad experience of taking in kids who were sleeping on park benches without enough food to eat.

Not if the price is a surgical and permanent.

I have never said I don't see a problem

The last paragraph has nothing to do with Chris's suggestion of housing and feeding welfare recipients.

Your winky up there, is ghoulish.



Your winky is ghoulish.
 
I guess it was too much to ask. :shrug:

I guess people, like with everything else, choose to change definitions to fit their own world views. If force means to be given a choice, however, unpleasant, than I am being forced to work for my wages. Whatta sham.


while I have the sad experience of taking in kids who were sleeping on park benches without enough food to eat.

anecdotal

Not if the price is a surgical and permanent.

don't worry about it. There are plenty of people who think with their amygdala while ignoring logical solutions; therefore, folks can continue to breed like rabbits while pushing the expense onto the rest of society.

I have never said I don't see a problem

The last paragraph has nothing to do with Chris's suggestion of housing and feeding welfare recipients.

Your winky up there, is ghoulish.



Your winky is ghoulish.

yeah ..er ok. :neutral:
 
Should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children? If so, what should be the standards to qualify and why?

People need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc and society is inundated with government regulations as it is, and yet people can breed freely without regard for their ability to provide for their children and regardless of genetic health. Personally, I think it would be disastrous to give the government control over reproduction, especially considering the lousy job it does with everything else. And yet, it is illogical for unhealthy and/or poverty stricken people to breed.

Do you think part of the problem is that the gov gives enough money, per child to low income parent(s), that it's an incentive to actually breed for the extra money? Especially since they can make more that way, than being employed in some cases or at least live comfortable?

Wouldn't it be easier to just cut back the money per child and reduce the incentive? Or would they continue to breed and simply unload the newborns onto the system burdening us further? I'm honestly curious what solutions sound compassionately viable?
 
Which equates to warehousing the welfare recipients into ghettos, chris. They all live there, away from us and are thus stigmatized. I cannot think of a more defeating situation and damaging to the children.

And again, this will not save the government money. There would need to be staff, to record people going in and out. Maintenance of buildings and grounds. If you are planning on feeding them in cafeterias, then cooks and dishwashers. If you are planning on handing out food, people are needed to manage the inventory. It would be necessary to have social workers on site as well, to manage cases.

This doesn't have to be any different than low-income housing. There are apartment complexes (some of which are very nice BTW) in my area that are low-income housing. That is kind of what I'm thinking of.

Why do they have to have social workers? I don't get where you are coming from with this. Welfare recipients automatically get a case worker but they don't have social workers unless there is some kind of issue. As it is now, welfare recipients don't live with case workers or social workers, so I don't see why any of that would have to change.

As far as food goes, I'm not sure how much it would cost. I guess food stamps could remain the same. :shrug:

Let's not forget, these are just scenarios that we are discussing. It's nothing to get worked up about. Feel free to disagree but there's really no need to be "frightened" over conversation and debate. We SHOULD be able to discuss these things.
 
This doesn't have to be any different than low-income housing. There are apartment complexes (some of which are very nice BTW) in my area that are low-income housing. That is kind of what I'm thinking of.

Why do they have to have social workers? I don't get where you are coming from with this. Welfare recipients automatically get a case worker but they don't have social workers unless there is some kind of issue. As it is now, welfare recipients don't live with case workers or social workers, so I don't see why any of that would have to change.

As far as food goes, I'm not sure how much it would cost. I guess food stamps could remain the same. :shrug:

Let's not forget, these are just scenarios that we are discussing. It's nothing to get worked up about. Feel free to disagree but there's really no need to be "frightened" over conversation and debate. We SHOULD be able to discuss these things.

All welfare recipients would live in such housing in a particular community?

Case workers/social workers to evaluate who's going in and out of occupancy would be good to have on site, if we are going to be serious about getting people on their feet, rather than warehousing them.

I thought the idea was to take food stamps out of the equation.

Yes, this is just a scenario and we are discussing it and while didn't express fear of this particular solution, I am concerned about putting all welfare recipients in one location, shelter, in a community. So no problem there.
 
All welfare recipients would live in such housing in a particular community?

They would live in different communities. Just like now there are apartment buildings that are specifically for Section 8 housing recipients.

Case workers/social workers to evaluate who's going in and out of occupancy would be good to have on site, if we are going to be serious about getting people on their feet, rather than warehousing them.

I don't really see the need for this, unless there is some history of neglect/abuse.

I thought the idea was to take food stamps out of the equation.

Well, if it would be too expensive, then I would suggest sticking with food stamps.

Yes, this is just a scenario and we are discussing it and while didn't express fear of this particular solution, I am concerned about putting all welfare recipients in one location, shelter, in a community. So no problem there.

I don't think it would be possible to have ALL of the welfare recipients in one community sharing one building. In my town, we have several low-income/Section 8 apartment buildings.
 
They would live in different communities. Just like now there are apartment buildings that are specifically for Section 8 housing recipients.



I don't really see the need for this, unless there is some history of neglect/abuse.



Well, if it would be too expensive, then I would suggest sticking with food stamps.



I don't think it would be possible to have ALL of the welfare recipients in one community sharing one building. In my town, we have several low-income/Section 8 apartment buildings.

Then how is this any different form Section 8 housing and the initial suggestion of community based shelters?
 
Then how is this any different form Section 8 housing and the initial suggestion of community based shelters?

The proposal was that we do away with whole welfare system and instead set people up in these apartments where all expenses are paid for them instead of them receiving cash. It actually is DA60's proposal, but I thought it made a lot of sense. As it is now, people get cash and are responsible for paying their own bills, and the waiting list for Section 8 is outrageously long.

IMO, this plan would not only save US money but would help the recipients as well, as apartments are expensive nowadays, and hard to afford without a Section 8 voucher.
 
Section 8 is crap. Build a glorified homeless shelter with plenty of cots and a bathroom to share, and ship them there.

You shouldn't even be within earshot of the American dream if you're living on the dole.
 
It would also help to make SURE that the children's basic needs were being met. The kids are the ones I care about.
 
The proposal was that we do away with whole welfare system and instead set people up in these apartments where all expenses are paid for them instead of them receiving cash. It actually is DA60's proposal, but I thought it made a lot of sense. As it is now, people get cash and are responsible for paying their own bills, and the waiting list for Section 8 is outrageously long.

IMO, this plan would not only save US money but would help the recipients as well, as apartments are expensive nowadays, and hard to afford without a Section 8 voucher.

Then expanding section 8 would be the answer, yes? They are apartment units set aside by owners of the building and paid for with vouchers, am I right? All over any particular city?

Food stamps stay in place, as we just agreed?
 
It would also help to make SURE that the children's basic needs were being met. The kids are the ones I care about.

How is that accomplished?
 
Then expanding section 8 would be the answer, yes? They are apartment units set aside by owners of the building and paid for with vouchers, am I right? All over any particular city?

Food stamps stay in place, as we just agreed?

Well, I think it sounds like a good idea. I think it would save money because instead of printing and mailing out all individual checks, people could be set up in these apartments that are all expenses paid.

I don't see too much of an issue with food stamps. People DO sell them for cash sometimes, for cigarettes or whatever though. So, there would be no guarantees that the children are being fed properly.

I also think recipients should have to either attend school or some job training program while they are collecting. It's the only way to make your life better. Otherwise, they would just be on the system/off the system, like a yo-yo.
 
Well, I think it sounds like a good idea. I think it would save money because instead of printing and mailing out all individual checks, people could be set up in these apartments that are all expenses paid.

I don't see too much of an issue with food stamps. People DO sell them for cash sometimes, for cigarettes or whatever though. So, there would be no guarantees that the children are being fed properly.

I also think recipients should have to either attend school or some job training program while they are collecting. It's the only way to make your life better. Otherwise, they would just be on the system/off the system, like a yo-yo.

It's not the savings from the elimination of printing and mailing you are really after though, yes? You are more concerned with welfare being spent on housing, gas and lights? This is what you mean by insuring children's needs are met?

I would agree to requiring school or training, for free, with accommodations for the working poor and child care.
 
It's not the savings from the elimination of printing and mailing you are really after though, yes? You are more concerned with welfare being spent on housing, gas and lights? This is what you mean by insuring children's needs are met?

Yes, to me, that is the whole point of welfare. The children's needs. They are usually the ones who end up suffering . . . one way or another.

I would agree to requiring school or training, for free, with accommodations for the working poor and child care.

I really like the idea and it's nice to agree. I don't know how economically feasible it is though. I think it would help out in the long run to create more productive people and have less people stuck in a cycle of poverty. Granted there will always be poor people though.
 
Back
Top Bottom