• 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!

Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

Should the right to bear children be regulated?

  • Yes to help keep the poulation down so hunting lands don't get overcrowded!

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Yes for other reasons

    Votes: 5 12.5%
  • No this is dumb

    Votes: 26 65.0%
  • Hmmm maybe

    Votes: 7 17.5%

  • Total voters
    40
  • This poll will close: .
We don't let people put marijuana in their bodies. Why not have the same regulations for fetuses? They are, after all, a lot easier to detect and impossible to hide without destroying...

Seriously, I'd love some kind of regulation on that, maybe to qualify for government assistance, and if your child is neglected due to your lack of license, they can be taken away quickly. There are too many uncaring parents out there.
Yes that is the obvious solution; more power for the state over the fundamental relationships and associations of life! You are onto something there comrade.
 
There should definitely be regulations on the right to bear children. There are too many people bringing children into the world when they aren't even capable of taking care of themselves. It's not right.

I agree with the sentiment, but I just can't think of any sensible way of enforcing it. Even the most benign methods, such as requiring means and values testing before allowing children to be taken home from the hospital are to prone to bias and corruption that a sensible person has no choice but to reject them out of hand.

I wish so badly there was a way someone could monitor everyone in the country at once, but there isn't.

Monitor them for what, having sex? You really want the government monitoring you in your bedroom and deciding whether or not you're allowed to have sex?

It's the only way to achieve a peaceful resolution to the supremacist impulse, which is genetic.

Yes, it's genetic. It's also inherent to the human species and only barely controlled in some highly restricted and conditioned portions of the population.

What is wrong with the supremacist impulse, that it needs to be resolved peacefully or otherwise? The impulse toward domination is one of the most powerful motivators of all human progress.

Only a fascist would want that kind of invasive, impractical, all-encompassing government control over our own bodies.

As a fascist, I resent that remark. I wouldn't want the government to have this level of control over society even if I were in charge of the government. It is, as you say, simply too impractical and invasive to seriously consider.

That said, I do think that women on public assistance should be required to use the pill, or have an IUD put in, or *something* to help prevent them from having MORE children while on government assistance.

I'd support this. Clear objective criteria, simple enforcement, and very little potential for abuse. Not to mention that it would clearly serve eugenic purposes alongside social concerns.
 
There should definitely be regulations on the right to bear children. There are too many people bringing children into the world when they aren't even capable of taking care of themselves. It's not right. I'm not just talking about teenagers, either. I'm only 17 and I could raise children better than all my friends parents can. I'd bet my life on that.
Being allowed to have children should be a privilage, not a right. Especially for stupid, incompetant morons.
I wish so badly there was a way someone could monitor everyone in the country at once, but there isn't.
More irresponsible people are going to continue to pop out babies and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I know no one outside of my own family who does a good job parenting. I'm so sick of my friends' stupid parents. They know absolutely nothing!
Also, I think that as long as someone isn't a total douche-bag and is financially stable, they should be able to have a child if they really want one.
If there were to be a test, it'd be long as hell.
=/
Anyone who failed, though, would have one more chance and then have to sterilize themselves.
For me, that'd be very ideal. You can't blame a girl for wishing.
Yes I can blame you for wishing. I don't want anyone like you having a right to vote in this country. You are worse than a communist. Not even the Russians went as far as you want to. Your sound like an unhinged radical.
 
My country controlling my reproductive organs? ROFL no, I think not. Only a fascist would want that kind of invasive, impractical, all-encompassing government control over our own bodies.

How did you go from this...

That said, I do think that women on public assistance should be required to use the pill, or have an IUD put in, or *something* to help prevent them from having MORE children while on government assistance.

To this?

The people on welfare is a must in my view too, but I would like to see it taken a step farther. If this was implimented it would help out america be a much better country in many ways. Especially socially and financially. This would greatly raise the average education level of our children spinning off to make america a much smarter and stronger country.

This would set a tangent to benefit this country in many ways not directly related. It's not easy to recognize all the eventual benefits at first unless you see the path to follow after the first steps are taken.
 
Last edited:
Yes I can blame you for wishing. I don't want anyone like you having a right to vote in this country. You are worse than a communist. Not even the Russians went as far as you want to. Your sound like an unhinged radical.

How can you say this when she is on the right track?
 
In general, I'd be against this.

I will say however, that as long as we're having massive government assistance into things like welfare and WIC and other such things that for those that choosen to concieve naturally but through scientific ways, I would be somewhat in favor of putting some kind of basic "ability to care/support" type test for those that are seeking such procedures and wish to be elligible for government funds.

They could still have the different treatments without such assessments, but would forfeit the right to have the normal benefits assossiated with childbirth (like WIC) or the ability to claim the children in regards to welfare type purposes.

The Octomom situation sickens me. A woman with no job, with next to no money, with kids ALREADY on the government dollar, saves what little money she has to not spend to take care of her kids but to pay someone to inject MORE into her to then have MORE kids that will further suck up the tax payers dime.

We can not, and should not, moderate what people do through biological means. But I believe I would be more accepting of some kind of test for those seeking to go about it through SCIENTIFIC means and wishing to be able to lean on the government for assistance while doing such.

Though this is precisely why I dislike these kind of government handout programs. Suddenly, things like this DOES become the tax payers concern, because we're the ones footing the bill for these peoples stupidity, immaturity, or selfishness.
 
Yes I can blame you for wishing. I don't want anyone like you having a right to vote in this country. You are worse than a communist. Not even the Russians went as far as you want to. Your sound like an unhinged radical.


No, you really can't. So many people have children that they can't take care of, that they abuse and neglect, that they raise to be complete jerks. It's very rare that you find a competant set of parents. Why is it so wrong for me to wish that only good people were able to reproduce?
 
No, you really can't. So many people have children that they can't take care of, that they abuse and neglect, that they raise to be complete jerks. It's very rare that you find a competant set of parents. Why is it so wrong for me to wish that only good people were able to reproduce?

Unfortunately this country needs major reform on its family values.

Seems as if nowadays every 5 years many people trade in their spouses for a new one. The fifty year aniversery is becoming more rare with each generation.

Nowadays people easily divorce on a selfish whim with little consideration as to how who they married feels...or the children for that matter
 
Heck, since hospitals can, with the support of the state, refuse to release infants to their mothers unless the mother can prove, to the satisfaction of the state, that the parent is financially, emotionally and physically capable of caring for the infant properly, most of these kids will never go home in the first place.

I see what you're saying. But what about the women who just have a home-birth? Not the good kind, either.
Also, it's not that difficult to satisfy the state. Parents are only required to provide the minimum care for their kids. A roof over their head, some clothes on their backs and some food in their stomachs. There's nothing in the minimum requirements that says anything about nurturing and teaching. It's sad.
 
There's nothing in the minimum requirements that says anything about nurturing and teaching. It's sad.

That's because you can't measure those things. The only thing you get when you try to judge them is subjectivity and bias.
 
In terms of controlling population numbers, this kind of policy is not necessary. Humanity is already well on its way to a tragedy of the commons, and nature will balance it out, either with famine, plague, natural disaster, or all of the above. In terms of social responsibility and who "should" have kids, I see no way of uniformly putting into policy something so subjective.

You can't base it on money because rich people can be lowsy parents. You can't base it on age because the human lifespan has almost tripled in the past 500 years and the fertility boundary is constantly being pushed further.

I guess my basic concern is, who decides?

I'm in favour of eliminating programs such as baby bonuses which provide incentives for people to have kids for financial reasons. I am also sadly, but admittedly, in favour of mandatory birth control for people on long-term welfare, although in practice I think its implementation would be highly controversial.

Fertility programs are something I take issue with because of the numbers of children often produced, and financial screening should be mandatory for people who undertake these procedures. It shouldn't be as simple as whether or not you have the money for the procedure itself.

I guess in the end, I'm in favour of it in theory, but in practice I just don't see how it could happen.
 
No, you really can't. So many people have children that they can't take care of, that they abuse and neglect, that they raise to be complete jerks. It's very rare that you find a competant set of parents. Why is it so wrong for me to wish that only good people were able to reproduce?
And who decides who and how they are regulated? You? A committee of politicians? The way you control this is by not giving them govt benefits. No benefits will modify their behavior. Why should I pay irresponsible people to have babies. Let them rot, no WIC, no free healthcare, nada....
 
I see what you're saying. But what about the women who just have a home-birth? Not the good kind, either.
Also, it's not that difficult to satisfy the state. Parents are only required to provide the minimum care for their kids. A roof over their head, some clothes on their backs and some food in their stomachs. There's nothing in the minimum requirements that says anything about nurturing and teaching. It's sad.

No matter where you have the baby, you're not going to keep it a secret from the state so it's really irrelevant. Those child-welfare people are going to come around and check on the conditions and if it's 27 kids living in a cardboard box, the state needs to take away the majority of them.

Unfortunately, nurturing and teaching are hard to quantify so it's not something we can say "this person is doing it" and "this person is not". All we can really do is control the elements that we can control and hope that, with the family reduced to a manageable size, those things will be easier to achieve.
 
Fertility programs are something I take issue with because of the numbers of children often produced, and financial screening should be mandatory for people who undertake these procedures. It shouldn't be as simple as whether or not you have the money for the procedure itself.
This is why the answer to your question "who decides?" should be "no one."

The solution, as cold and heartless as it might seem to some, is to keep government out of the picture entirely--no welfare, no WIC, no medicaid, no AFDC, nada. People can (and perhaps should) support any one of several charitable organizations that can fulfill these same roles, and the more people understand that they are at the mercy of their neighbor's charity the more likely they are to exercise caution in their own behavior.

The answer is to make all such questions irrelevant. Remove the safety net and let people feel the full weight of their bad decisions, and let them revel in the full glory of their good decisions.
 
This is why the answer to your question "who decides?" should be "no one."

The solution, as cold and heartless as it might seem to some, is to keep government out of the picture entirely--no welfare, no WIC, no medicaid, no AFDC, nada. People can (and perhaps should) support any one of several charitable organizations that can fulfill these same roles, and the more people understand that they are at the mercy of their neighbor's charity the more likely they are to exercise caution in their own behavior.

The answer is to make all such questions irrelevant. Remove the safety net and let people feel the full weight of their bad decisions, and let them revel in the full glory of their good decisions.

I come from a different culture than you, one where socialized systems are common place, accepted, and expected within the national framework. I'm against big government, but I'm also in favour of functional government that serves as a member of the community.

If the government is not actively helping members of the community who are in genuine need (much like a neighbour would), then there is no point in forming any kind of coherent nationalism. We will all just be flapping in the wind. Given that, there should be no need for taxes at all, no need for national infrastructure projects, no need for public schools, because every person should depend on their own weight to carry them through.

I might agree with you if it was 200 years ago and modern technology weren't separating people more and more from one another. When I grew up, children actually played in the streets. And now? Children stay inside and surf the net, or play video games. Few people take the time to know their neighbour anymore, so frankly I think it's a little late to revert to depending on a community support structure. The government is now, more often than not, the difference between life and death for some people.
 
Last edited:
And who decides who and how they are regulated? You? A committee of politicians? The way you control this is by not giving them govt benefits. No benefits will modify their behavior. Why should I pay irresponsible people to have babies. Let them rot, no WIC, no free healthcare, nada....


Yeah, that would be ideal. Except that's not only hurting the parents, but it's hurting the babies, too.
 
I come from a different culture than you, one where socialized systems are common place, accepted, and expected within the national framework. I'm against big government, but I'm also in favour of functional government that serves as a member of the community.
Government is not a member of the community. Structurally, it cannot be a divisible member of the community, but is rather an expression of the community. Philosophically, government tends to act as an impediment to the advancement of a community.

If the government is not actively helping members of the community who are in genuine need (much like a neighbour would), then there is no point in forming any kind of coherent nationalism. We will all just be flapping in the wind.
Government has a limited set of functions that it is competent to carry out. They are most succinctly stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The function most immediately relevant here is "promote the general Welfare." Note that it does not say "promote the welfare of all citizens," or "promote the welfare of each and every citizen," but merely the "general" welfare. Government exists to preserve and promote conditions which allow individuals the freedom and the opportunity to prosper; it's involvement in the welfare of people is necessarily broad and imprecise. Welfare programs, being as they are payments and subsidies to individuals, are specific and precise. Yes, government can do such things, but that is poor justification for saying government should do such things, particularly when even the Preamble of the Constitution suggests that government should not do such things (providing for the "general Welfare" is separate, distinct, and demonstrably in opposition to providing for the "specific welfare.").

I might agree with you if it was 200 years ago and modern technology weren't separating people more and more from one another. When I grew up, children actually played in the streets. And now? Children stay inside and surf the net, or play video games. Few people take the time to know their neighbour anymore, so frankly I think it's a little late to revert to depending on a community support structure.
Government welfare is a "community support structure", albeit a defective and dysfunctional one. The question is not whether the community should support its less fortunate members, but how.

There is no "reversion" to be had, merely a change from a dysfunctional support structure to a functional one.

The fact that welfare programs have grown rather than declined over the years is categorical proof of one thing: they do not achieve their goals. Welfare is a demonstrable failure. Continuing welfare is thus social madness.
 
Last edited:
Government is not a member of the community. Structurally, it cannot be a divisible member of the community, but is rather an expression of the community. Philosophically, government tends to act as an impediment to the advancement of a community.


Government has a limited set of functions that it is competent to carry out. They most succinctly stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States:

The function most immediately relevant here is "promote the general Welfare." Note that it does not say "promote the welfare of all citizens," or "promote the welfare of each and every citizen," but merely the "general" welfare. Government exists to preserve and promote conditions which allow individuals the freedom and the opportunity to prosper; it's involvement in the welfare of people is necessarily broad and imprecise. Welfare programs, being as they are payments and subsidies to individuals, are specific and precise. Yes, government can do such things, but that is poor justification for saying government should do such things, particularly when even the Preamble of the Constitution suggests that government should not do such things (providing for the "general Welfare" is separate, distinct, and demonstrably in opposition to providing for the "specific welfare.").


Government welfare is a "community support structure", albeit a defective and dysfunctional one. The question is not whether the community should support its less fortunate members, but how.

There is no "reversion" to be had, merely a change from a dysfunctional support structure to a functional one.

The fact that welfare programs have grown rather than declined over the years is categorical proof of one thing: they do not achieve their goals. Welfare is a demonstrable failure. Continuing welfare is thus social madness.

Wow talk about overly complicated.

The problem with welfare is that it is easy to get and there is too much waste. The answer is not eliminating welfare but reforming it to be more functional.
 
The answer is not eliminating welfare but reforming it to be more functional.
The only functional form of government welfare is "none".
 
The only functional form of government welfare is "none".

I don't agree. In the modern era where so few people concern themselves with volunteer work and dedicating genuine time to their communities, there is often no fall back for people on hard times. I do believe that there are those on welfare who are not in genuine need, but to say that none are deserving is an extreme. Redistribution of wealth, to some degree, is important for a stable society. This is why the rich fall into a higher tax bracket than the lower classes.
 
I don't agree. In the modern era where so few people concern themselves with volunteer work and dedicating genuine time to their communities, there is often no fall back for people on hard times.
In this country, not true. Americans, especially prosperous Americans, give more to charitable causes and organizations than any other people.

I do believe that there are those on welfare who are not in genuine need, but to say that none are deserving is an extreme.
I quite agree--but that has never been my argument, and any assertion to the contrary is a straw man (or an outright lie, take your pick). The question is not whether there are people in need, or whether they are deserving of the generosity of the larger community; the question is whether government welfare is the appropriate expression of that generosity. The answer to that question is no, government welfare is not an appropriate expression of that generosity; it is not a functional expression of that generosity; it is not a moral expression of that generosity; it is not a viable expression of that generosity. Government welfare fails to alleviate the suffering it putatively claims to address; it does not work, so why insist on its continuance?

Redistribution of wealth, to some degree, is important for a stable society. This is why the rich fall into a higher tax bracket than the lower classes.
Redistribution of wealth is a good way to destabilize society, or to bankrupt society (or both, which has been the lesson of history). Coerced redistribution of wealth destroys wealth (the stellar non-success of the Soviet Union and its hegemony); a sustained effort of coerced redistribution destroys freedom (again, the Soviet Union, but also mainland China, which has evolved from a Maoist/Marxist society to essentially a fascist one); it is a lose-lose proposition.

Additionally, progressive tax systems are neither conceptually nor intentionally redistributive in nature. Tax systems of any kind are only redistributive when income tax credits result in reverse tax payments to individuals who otherwise would not owe any tax, or result in a negation of the tax burden otherwise owed by individuals.
 
In this country, not true. Americans, especially prosperous Americans, give more to charitable causes and organizations than any other people.

That's not what I meant. Donating money is not at all the same as volunteering your spare time and energies towards helping your community develop sustainable projects that help others. Throwing money at something does not change a damn thing.

And the rich donate in order to get tax breaks.

I quite agree--but that has never been my argument, and any assertion to the contrary is a straw man (or an outright lie, take your pick).

It's neither. In your own words, you said that a functional welfare system is no welfare system.

The question is not whether there are people in need, or whether they are deserving of the generosity of the larger community; the question is whether government welfare is the appropriate expression of that generosity. The answer to that question is no, government welfare is not an appropriate expression of that generosity; it is not a functional expression of that generosity; it is not a moral expression of that generosity; it is not a viable expression of that generosity. Government welfare fails to alleviate the suffering it putatively claims to address; it does not work, so why insist on its continuance?

It does not work in what sense?

Redistribution of wealth is a good way to destabilize society, or to bankrupt society (or both, which has been the lesson of history). Coerced redistribution of wealth destroys wealth (the stellar non-success of the Soviet Union and its hegemony); a sustained effort of coerced redistribution destroys freedom (again, the Soviet Union, but also mainland China, which has evolved from a Maoist/Marxist society to essentially a fascist one); it is a lose-lose proposition.

Your credibility quickly dwindled as soon as you mentioned Marxism. Having some socialized systems does not make a country Marxist. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. All successful economies are mixed in nature, with some command elements and some free market elements.

China is not a fascist country. Its government has thousands of members, and its economy is essentially capitalist now.

Additionally, progressive tax systems are neither conceptually nor intentionally redistributive in nature. Tax systems of any kind are only redistributive when income tax credits result in reverse tax payments to individuals who otherwise would not owe any tax, or result in a negation of the tax burden otherwise owed by individuals.

Actually they are. If the wealthy pay more, then government projects and social programs using public funds end up delivering that money, either directly or through capital, back to the country. If the poor pay less but receive more, then that is distribution of wealth in action.

Countries that have flat tax (and not progressive):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Flat_personal_income_tax.png

Just look at those economic power houses. :roll:

Countries that have no social infrastructure to help the neediest members are ones that are doomed to have spiraling social problems. If America had a moderate view of social programs, you wouldn't be suffering the polar extremes of your two party system: one party that cuts social programs left and right, and another party that causes the deficit to climb in order to infuse useless social programs with money.

Frankly, it makes no sense to have a government so large yet not providing any benefits to the public. Where is all that tax money going, in that case?
 
celticlord said:
This is why the answer to your question "who decides?" should be "no one."

But that's not practically prudent. When you're part of a cooperative society, you can't simply leave the rules on things that affect the whole up to the individual. Who decides on the laws? No one? Who sets the standards? No one? That's insane and the death knell of the society as an ongoing concern. No society can survive like that.

Remove the safety net and let people feel the full weight of their bad decisions, and let them revel in the full glory of their good decisions.

But unfortunately, the ones suffering the full weight of bad decisions in these cases are most often not the ones who made the bad decisions in the first place. We're talking about innocent children who suffer the stupidity of their parents and you're really left with only three options that I can think of:

1) Control the right to breed, which we've all already acknowledged is both difficult to do and would face stiff opposition.
2) Ignore the kids entirely and let their parents do as they will. This is going to end up both with a lot of dead, damaged and psychologically harmed kids, which I think everyone can agree is a bad thing, but it's going to massively negatively impact the next generation of the society. It's commiting social suicide.
3) Take those kids out of the situations with the worst parental offenders, put them in homes where they have a chance of growing up to be educated, intelligent, healthy and functional members of society and if you hang those bad parents out to dry, that's fine with me. They did the crime, they deserve to do the time.
 
Throwing money at something does not change a damn thing.
Exactly. Hence the need to put a stop to the madness of government welfare.

(as the joke goes, "welcome to the Republican Party")
 
Back
Top Bottom