• 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!

Who, if anyone, should be put on State mandated birth control?

Who, if anyone, should the State force on birth control?

  • The mentally retarded

    Votes: 9 13.2%

  • Those with genetic diseases that will cost the State

    Votes: 9 13.2%

  • Drug addicts

    Votes: 11 16.2%

  • Child abusers

    Votes: 16 23.5%

  • Those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare)

    Votes: 17 25.0%

  • Those who've already had 2 or 3 kids (overpopulation)

    Votes: 5 7.4%

  • Anyone failing a psychological test

    Votes: 3 4.4%

  • Women over 35 (Higher rate of genetic anomalies)

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • Girls under 18

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights

    Votes: 46 67.6%
  • Total voters
    68
octomum...............
 
are you trying to put Maury Povich ect out of business:shock:
 
TurtleDude said:
If other people pay for your existence, they have a right to have some say in what you do-including preventing you from engaging in activities that cause them to have to fork over more money.
Click to expand...
There should be best quotes section and this post belongs there.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
The government provides all sorts of other incentives, to businesses, farmers, drug companies, etc. They do this for the common good. Why not encourage long term welfare recipients, drug addicts, etc, to be sterilized?
Click to expand...

Considering the plethora of incentives that government has provided to enhance the breeding and overpopulation of the riffraff and provide for them at the expense of the more intelligent and productive people, and considering the long-term degenerating of the human species as a result, an investment in eugenics makes sense to maintain quality stock.

Of course a more sensible approach would be to abandon the welfare state and reckless immigration policies, but I don't see that happening in the near future.

So the human species, at least in America, continues to decline and may someday degenerate into something akin to what we saw in "Planet of the Apes."
 
I am disgusted that anyone could even consider banning a woman from having a child. Talk about not letting her do what she wants with her own body. If you are pro-choice and would support forced birth control you are a hypocrite.
 
Lakryte said:
I am disgusted that anyone could even consider banning a woman from having a child. Talk about not letting her do what she wants with her own body. If you are pro-choice and would support forced birth control you are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

What if someone is "pro-choice" for the same reasons they are in favor of mandatory birth control?

What if the same "pro-choice" person was actually in favor of mandatory abortions as well?

Not everyone uses the same mentality for supporting abortion. For some people, it's not choice that's an issue. It's the belief that most people shouldn't have kids to begin with.

I'm not saying that's my position, but I do know some people who hold that position.

This is why the pro-choice label is misleading. Some people are just pro-abortion.
 
No. The government has no business regulating what people do to their own bodies. The only exception should be when people pose a serious danger to others, for instance forced medication of dangerous and violent mentally ill persons can be justified. But forced sterilisation or birth control can never be justified - people having children can be annoying but it can never be dangerous to someone else.

I think the idea of forbidding people you consider inferior from taking part in basic parts of human life is simply disgusting. If we should have learnt anything from the 20th century it should be what that kind of supremacist mentality can lead to. Racial hygiene has been tried before and the results are scary.

I think this is a very slippery slope. We could easily end up having the government regulating everything, allowing only those who fit into the government-approved ideological view on what a good family is to have children. One can be cynical and think that it will never hit yourself, but as Martin Niemöller wrote in 1946:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
 
I picked a few where it mite apply, but I would be against this in any form as it violates the civil rights of an individual.

I do have one question. Someone said "no" to people on welfare because it is racist? The majority of people on welfare by far is whites? How would it then be racist? Is it because because of the higher rate of minority's per capita?
 
Blackdog said:
I picked a few where it mite apply, but I would be against this in any form as it violates the civil rights of an individual.
Click to expand...

Are you against putting people in prison because it might violate their civil rights? If a woman is being subsidized by the rest of us because of her inability to manage her own life, to some degree, she has abdicated her rights to control her uterus. If a woman has previously abused a child, she's not entitled to any more.

Actions have consequences.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Are you against putting people in prison because it might violate their civil rights?
Click to expand...

No. By commiting a crime, you give up certain rights.

Catz Part Deux said:
If a woman is being subsidized by the rest of us because of her inability to manage her own life, to some degree, she has abdicated her rights to control her uterus. If a woman has previously abused a child, she's not entitled to any more.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the Constitution says reciving welfare or doing drugs (unless convicted of a crime) means you give up any rights.

The government in my opinion has to much authority as it is. That last thing we need is the government having the power to decide who can breed.

Catz Part Deux said:
Actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

Giving the government that kind of power would have long and far reaching consequences.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
No. By commiting a crime, you give up certain rights.
Click to expand...

Child abuse isn't a crime?

Nothing in the Constitution says reciving welfare or doing drugs (unless convicted of a crime) means you give up any rights.
Click to expand...

It should. Accepting welfare payments should mean accepting norplant.

p.s. Are you under the mistaken impression that there is a constitutional right to breed?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Child abuse isn't a crime?
Click to expand...

Females in prison are not allowed to keep their children and often lose them.

Catz Part Deux said:
It should. Accepting welfare payments should mean accepting norplant.
Click to expand...

No it should not. A simple time limit on welfare or no extra benefits for more children would be a more reasonable and less intrusive solution.

Catz Part Deux said:
p.s. Are you under the mistaken impression that there is a constitutional right to breed?
Click to expand...

No mistake. It is a natural human function governed by instinct. The government has no right to enter into law something that would make a natural instinctual human function illegal for receiving assistance.

They don't even have the right ti hinder religion, so why would they have one to infringe on natural human function?
 
Those living on welfare and government assistance. Poverty breeds more poverty. Break that cycle and you're a step ahead.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
What do you think, should the State mandate birth control for anyone? This will be a multiple choice poll.
Click to expand...

This joke has probably most definitely been made but. WIthout looking through the thread... Octomom. :mrgreen:
 
Your mom.

Actually, I'm not sure why people think having children is a basic human right.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Your mom.

Actually, I'm not sure why people think having children is a basic human right.
Click to expand...

This person with the name "liveuninhibited" thinks natural human instinct is something that should be controlled by the government?

It is intresting, but how do you justify it and where do you draw the line?
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Your mom.

Actually, I'm not sure why people think having children is a basic human right.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're very clever, making fun of my dead Mother, who was infertile and had to adopt! :2wave:

You ought to quit your day job... ;)
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
This person with the name "liveuninhibited" thinks natural human instinct is something that should be controlled by the government?

It is intresting, but how do you justify it and where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

He draws the line at his own reproductive life, naturally... :lol:
 
Blackdog said:
This person with the name "liveuninhibited" thinks natural human instinct is something that should be controlled by the government?

It is intresting, but how do you justify it and where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Yeah I was a hardcore libertarian when I first started using this name about 12 years ago. I guess next time I join a forum I might choose another one.

Anyway, it's quite easy to justify. Raising children necessarily involves an innocent, non-consenting third party, and so cannot possibly be treated as a right. Assuming you're okay with the government taking kids away from abusive parents after the fact, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want the government to prevent people who have abused kids in the past from abusing more kids.

The "natural human instinct" (not that I consider that criteria relevant to anything) part is having sex, which I would not stop people, even relatives, from doing assuming everybody involved is consenting. Thankfully it is quite possible to have sex without procreation, and since I believe in abortion to a point it doesn't matter to me if the birth control fails.

I'd certainly draw the line no earlier than those who have clearly demonstrated they are a risk to children, or cannot take care of children (e.g. severely mentally challenged). While it's true that we ought to be conservative in how we apply it, I just don't buy into the slippery slope argument of it being inevitably abused.
 
Last edited:
LiveUninhibited said:
Yeah I was a hardcore libertarian when I first started using this name about 12 years ago. I guess next time I join a forum I might choose another one.

Anyway, it's quite easy to justify. Raising children necessarily involves an innocent, non-consenting third party, and so cannot possibly be treated as a right. Assuming you're okay with the government taking kids away from abusive parents after the fact, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want the government to prevent people who have abused kids in the past from abusing more kids.

The "natural human instinct" (not that I consider that criteria relevant to anything) part is having sex, which I would not stop people, even relatives, from doing assuming everybody involved is consenting. Thankfully it is quite possible to have sex without procreation, and since I believe in abortion to a point it doesn't matter to me if the birth control fails.

I'd certainly draw the line no earlier than those who have clearly demonstrated they are a risk to children, or cannot take care of children (e.g. severely mentally challenged). While it's true that we ought to be conservative in how we apply it, I just don't buy into the slippery slope argument of it being inevitably abused.
Click to expand...

Then you understand very little about the basic human as an animal. Every animal including humans have the natural urge to procreate. It is not up to the state to tell anyone they can or cannot breed unless they give up that right by committing a crime.

Your reasoning is flawed if not typical of the modern day progressive. Who complains about the Christian right and it's "morality" being forced into to law for things like abortion and the death penalty etc.
 
The argument that the government has to use forced birth control against women (what about men?) who are in one way or another unable to take care of their children doesn't hold. There are far less intrusive options available that will just as effectively make sure that children are not raised under indecent conditions.

We can help the families, provide treatment and therapy for the problems that renders them unfit for raising children. If the parents are so far out that they cannot be helped we can take away the children as it happens already.

There are no good reasons for forced sterilisations.

By the way - who has been known to use forced sterilisation? Nazi Germany and the Chinese occupation forces in Tibet - is that a club a democratic and civilised country would like to join?
 
LiveUninhibited said:
I'd certainly draw the line no earlier than those who have clearly demonstrated they are a risk to children, or cannot take care of children (e.g. severely mentally challenged). While it's true that we ought to be conservative in how we apply it, I just don't buy into the slippery slope argument of it being inevitably abused.
Click to expand...

Really?
Please give a full and complete definition of those conditions which will fit perfectly with every situation possible.

Write it out on a piece of paper.
Read it checking punctuation grammar and spelling.
Fold it up.

And shove it where the sun don't shine.

BTW severly mentally retarded people can't have sex. It's illegal as they are unable to consent making the act rape. But you may have already knew that. So I'm wonderinng at what point you would class a person as Severly mentally disabled. How about physically disabled? you got a problem with that too?
 
I'm just :shock: at the responses.

It's a violation of rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom