• 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
MyOwnDrum

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What do you think, should the State mandate birth control for anyone? This will be a multiple choice poll.
 
The mentally retarded
Click to expand...

No. Most forms of mental retardation are not hereditary.

Those with genetic diseases that will cost the State
Click to expand...

Depends what they have, if they could safely use birth control, etc. I don't think people with severe genetic diseases that are likely to be passed on should be reproducing.

Drug addicts
Click to expand...

No. The logistics of mandating this would be nightmarish.

Child abusers
Click to expand...

Possibly. Depends how severe the abuse was, how long ago, if they've shown remorse or taken any action to correct it, etc.

Those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare)
Click to expand...

No. This is thinly-veiled racism.

Those who've already had 2 or 3 kids (overpopulation)
Click to expand...

No. That's just not a problem in this country.

Anyone failing a psychological test
Click to expand...

What kind of test?

Women over 35 (Higher rate of genetic anomalies)
Girls under 18
Click to expand...

No. The government shouldn't be in the business of deciding at what age people are allowed to have kids.

Forced birth control is a violation of basic human rights
Click to expand...

In most circumstances, I would agree. There were a couple on your list that I'm on the fence about though.
 
In general, I am against this, for those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare); BUT if you take the King's coin...

It would solve a lot of problems. Their own and society's.
 
I do think there should be much more accoutability built into the welfare system. Not sure how to accomplish that.
 
While I am an AVID proponent of birth control, I don't believe there should be a state mandate for it. I believe that birth control and sterilization procedures should be subsidized for by the state, there should be birth control for men as well as women, and there should be comprehensive education for sex and birth control. However, I don't believe that the state should force such birth control on others. That's too much government interference in the private lives of people, and disrespects the reproductive rights of the people.
 
samsmart said:
While I am an AVID proponent of birth control, I don't believe there should be a state mandate for it. I believe that birth control and sterilization procedures should be subsidized for by the state, there should be birth control for men as well as women, and there should be comprehensive education for sex and birth control. However, I don't believe that the state should force such birth control on others. That's too much government interference in the private lives of people, and disrespects the reproductive rights of the people.
Click to expand...

What about government incentives for sterilization?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
What about government incentives for sterilization?
Click to expand...

Nope. It is not the government's job to provide incentives for the people. The government should provide these services so that anybody can have access to them whether they are wealthy or poor or man or woman. It is not up to the government to decide for the people or to push them to make one choice or another.
 
samsmart said:
Nope. It is not the government's job to provide incentives for the people. The government should provide these services so that anybody can have access to them whether they are wealthy or poor or man or woman. It is not up to the government to decide for the people or to push them to make one choice or another.
Click to expand...

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?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
What do you think, should the State mandate birth control for anyone? This will be a multiple choice poll.
Click to expand...

No one. Under any circumstances.

If we give our government the authority to mandate birth control for a select group it will only be a matter of time before they're using that power on another group.

And one day it just might be a group you're in.
 
kansaswhig said:
In general, I am against this, for those receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare); BUT if you take the King's coin...
Click to expand...

The answer then is to stop giving away the King's coin.

It would solve a lot of problems. Their own and society's.
Click to expand...

Sure, and it would create a whole new batch of problems. The biggest one being that we just gave our government the authority to decide who gets pregnant and who doesn't.

------
 
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...

The government does not provide incentives for the common good. They provide incentives for their own good. Politicians don't do anything unless they also get a benefit from it.

If the government "encourages" sterilization then someone has to pay the tab for that. Who do you think that will be?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
What do you think, should the State mandate birth control for anyone? This will be a multiple choice poll.
Click to expand...

The only one I can agree with, and I actually advocate forced sterilization for them, is drug addicts that have already given birth to one drug affected child.

And I am draconian in my application of that practice and am more than willing to accept the howler monkey squealing that is bound to ensue for having said it.

I have no empathy, sympathy or compassion for women who give birth to crack babies. None.
 
jallman said:
The only one I can agree with, and I actually advocate forced sterilization for them, is drug addicts that have already given birth to one drug affected child.

And I am draconian in my application of that practice and am more than willing to accept the howler monkey squealing that is bound to ensue for having said it.

I have no empathy, sympathy or compassion for women who give birth to crack babies. None.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that one...
 
jallman said:
The only one I can agree with, and I actually advocate forced sterilization for them, is drug addicts that have already given birth to one drug affected child.

And I am draconian in my application of that practice and am more than willing to accept the howler monkey squealing that is bound to ensue for having said it.

I have no empathy, sympathy or compassion for women who give birth to crack babies. None.
Click to expand...

I promise, no Howler Monkey activity from me. Although that's a hilarious visual.

To your post - you don't want to go down that road. I appreciate your honesty and I can see your concern in protecting the children and our society. I really mean that. I know your intentions are good.

But if we give the government that kind of power we are opening a door with a lot of scary stuff on the other side.

Less than 100 years ago there was another group of people that many citizens and bureaucrats wanted to have sterilized. They were considered "sexual perverts" and moral degenerates. I know the state of Oregon came close to getting their law passed, but it either failed at the very end or it was overturned by their Supreme Court.

Wanna guess which group of people our friends in Oregon wanted to forcefully sterilize?

---
 
I'm supportive of mandatory sterilization for women who pop out multiple crack-babies. Other than that, I wouldn't support it.
 
jallman said:
The only one I can agree with, and I actually advocate forced sterilization for them, is drug addicts that have already given birth to one drug affected child.

And I am draconian in my application of that practice and am more than willing to accept the howler monkey squealing that is bound to ensue for having said it.

I have no empathy, sympathy or compassion for women who give birth to crack babies. None.
Click to expand...

We should start a political action committee.

Handsome bad-asses against crack-whores.
 
Winnb said:
I promise, no Howler Monkey activity from me. Although that's a hilarious visual.

To your post - you don't want to go down that road. I appreciate your honesty and I can see your concern in protecting the children and our society. I really mean that. I know your intentions are good.

But if we give the government that kind of power we are opening a door with a lot of scary stuff on the other side.

Less than 100 years ago there was another group of people that many citizens and bureaucrats wanted to have sterilized. They were considered "sexual perverts" and moral degenerates. I know the state of Oregon came close to getting their law passed, but it either failed at the very end or it was overturned by their Supreme Court.

Wanna guess which group of people our friends in Oregon wanted to forcefully sterilize?

---
Click to expand...

Except those people weren't hurting other people with their "degenerate" activity. Crack-whores who give birth to babies are chemically assaulting their newborns.
 
Winnb said:
I promise, no Howler Monkey activity from me. Although that's a hilarious visual.
Click to expand...

I do what I can to amuse. ;)

To your post - you don't want to go down that road. I appreciate your honesty and I can see your concern in protecting the children and our society. I really mean that. I know your intentions are good.

But if we give the government that kind of power we are opening a door with a lot of scary stuff on the other side.

Less than 100 years ago there was another group of people that many citizens and bureaucrats wanted to have sterilized. They were considered "sexual perverts" and moral degenerates. I know the state of Oregon came close to getting their law passed, but it either failed at the very end or it was overturned by their Supreme Court.

Wanna guess which group of people our friends in Oregon wanted to forcefully sterilize?

---
Click to expand...

I understand your caution but there is a glaring fact that must be pointed out. My philosophy on sterilization of a drug addict is predicated on the drug addict having already committed biochemical assault on one child. It is a judicial response to a criminal act having already been tried and convicted. It is a response to the victimization of a child and to prevent it from occurring a second time.

It's not that far off from what we already have built in our judicial system in the cases of child rapists who are chemically castrated as a part of their probation.

In the scenario you point to, Oregon's attempt to sterilize what I assume must be homosexuals (because that seems to be what everyone uses to try to incite a reaction out of me as opposed to a response these days), was a matter of eugenics being applied. Which is totally inconsistent and illogical because most people who would support such a thing are the same ones who would scream to high heaven that homosexuality isn't genetic. Figure that one out. The forced sterilization of homosexuals, besides being illogical because homosexuals, by nature of being homosexuals, aren't prone to prolific breeding, fails to acknowledge a crime for which justice is being served and a victim or prevention of further victims.

On the surface, it appears to be a valid comparison but once you look at it a little deeper, it's like comparing apples and hubcaps.
 
Ethereal said:
We should start a political action committee.

Handsome bad-asses against crack-whores.
Click to expand...

Damn it. I wanted to join, but I'm not a handsome badass.

What about:

Handsome bad-asses and one fugly semi-retard against crack-whores?
 
Ethereal said:
Except those people weren't hurting other people with their "degenerate" activity. Crack-whores who give birth to babies are chemically assaulting their newborns.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I'm not arguing against the reason you and Jallman stated, it's a good one. My concern would be giving our government more power than they already have.

Every time we give power to our government they keep it and they expand it.

Social Security was intended to help senior citizens and retired people, especially widows. It was signed into law during the depression. Probably seemed like a great idea at the time. Now look what it has grown into.
 
Winnb said:
My concern would be giving our government more power than they already have.
Click to expand...

Really, that's the only concern I have about it, too.

I think that any sterilization sentence should be executed after a trial by jury.
 
jallman said:
I do what I can to amuse. ;)



I understand your caution but there is a glaring fact that must be pointed out. My philosophy on sterilization of a drug addict is predicated on the drug addict having already committed biochemical assault on one child. It is a judicial response to a criminal act having already been tried and convicted. It is a response to the victimization of a child and to prevent it from occurring a second time.

It's not that far off from what we already have built in our judicial system in the cases of child rapists who are chemically castrated as a part of their probation.

In the scenario you point to, Oregon's attempt to sterilize what I assume must be homosexuals (because that seems to be what everyone uses to try to incite a reaction out of me as opposed to a response these days), was a matter of eugenics being applied. Which is totally inconsistent and illogical because most people who would support such a thing are the same ones who would scream to high heaven that homosexuality isn't genetic. Figure that one out. The forced sterilization of homosexuals, besides being illogical because homosexuals, by nature of being homosexuals, aren't prone to prolific breeding, fails to acknowledge a crime for which justice is being served and a victim or prevention of further victims.

On the surface, it appears to be a valid comparison but once you look at it a little deeper, it's like comparing apples and hubcaps.
Click to expand...


Okay. Fair enough. As I told Ethereal, I can't argue with your reasoning for wanting to sterilize women that are popping out crack babies. I get it.

My only concern, which you'll probably get sick of hearing in a lot of threads, is the power we're granting. I know it seems like a good idea to give our government the authority to stop an activity we don't like. But that's how we ended up with the tremendous overbearing government we have today.

---
 
Ethereal said:
Except those people weren't hurting other people with their "degenerate" activity. Crack-whores who give birth to babies are chemically assaulting their newborns.
Click to expand...

Well back in the early 1900's I'm sure lots of people could have made the argument that gay people were hurting society.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Really, that's the only concern I have about it, too.

I think that any sterilization sentence should be executed after a trial by jury.
Click to expand...

I think that gives a sense of justice to the whole proceeding, but it doesn't limit the government's power. The best hope for that would be the Supreme Court striking down the sterilization law
 
Winnb said:
Okay. Fair enough. As I told Ethereal, I can't argue with your reasoning for wanting to sterilize women that are popping out crack babies. I get it.

My only concern, which you'll probably get sick of hearing in a lot of threads, is the power we're granting. I know it seems like a good idea to give our government the authority to stop an activity we don't like. But that's how we ended up with the tremendous overbearing government we have today.

---
Click to expand...

By that argument, why have any penalties or laws? Why not just make crack legal and be done with it? No one should be sent to prison at all.

My point being, what is so damn sacred about letting a woman get knocked up vs throwing her in prison for 30 years? If the self same woman contracts active TB, the health dept WILL be coming weekly to her home to make sure she takes her TB meds. If she becomes schizophrenic and is released from a inpatient psyche unit to a halfway house, she WILL be required to comply with her medication regimen.

So, what's so damn special that the State shouldn't have an interest in a crack mother not having more damaged kids on the public dime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom