The Instigator
acbriggs
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Chemical sterilization for non-custodial parents of 2 or more children that don't pay child support

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,294 times Debate No: 13663
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

acbriggs

Pro

In today's failing economy, many non-custodial parents feel the easiest way to save a buck is by ignoring their court-ordered child support obligations. While this in and of itself is a frightening thought, there exists an undercurrent even worse. These parents who choose to ignore their responsibilities, are allowed to continue to reproduce. I put before you if you cannot or will not meet your court-ordered obligations, you should not be left to bring more children you have no plans on supporting into this world. Among the obvious financial benefits to the existing children, this strategy would also encourage parental involvement even after divorce/separation, lessen the economic strain place on welfare projects (and by extension, society in general), encourage thoughtfulness prior to procreation and/or unprotected intercourse (thereby reducing STIs), lessen the chances the existing children will become criminals, and ensure those invoking their reproductive rights are doing so responsibly. This should not be an option for non-custodial parents who have routinely met their obligations and have fallen on hard times (due to loss of job, illness or injury). Those individuals should either a) be given a finite amount of time to recover and/or b) have the courts adjust their child support temporarily, to be returned to normal after a 'hearing'. The adjustments to child support should not be considered if the non-custodial parent has remarried or experienced the birth of another child; it should also not be considered if the custodial parent has fallen on hard time, remarried or experienced the birth of another child. It is important to note that I have specified the child support be court-ordered in order to meet the requirements for chemical sterilization. If the custodial parent has not filed for support for his/her own reasons or both parties have made arrangements outside of the system, they would not be governed by this. It would only fall under the supervision of the courts/government if the custodial parent officially petitioned the system to oversee child-support. Having petitioned and been granted child support, the time/amount prior to the petition being granted would not count against the non-custodial parent. His/her time would start once the courts became involved, so to speak.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks acbriggs for the topic.

==Definitions==

One definition needs to be clarified for the sake of this debate.

Chemical sterilization (CS) refers to the permanent sterilization of an individual achieved by creating scarring in the vas deferens or fallopian tubes through chemical means. [1]

In contrast, chemical castration (CC) is a completely different term; this term is actually a misnomer. [2] CC refers to regularly administered drugs that prevent a male from being aroused – the effect wears off when the drug treatments cease.

==Rebuttal==

Because of my case strategy, I only need to answer one of my opponent's arguments here: that CS will result in less unprotected sex.

In fact, I turn this argument. CS would result in more unsafe sex because females now know that they are guaranteed child support, so they will be more willing to risk pregnancy.

==My case==

I agree with my opponent's goal of getting everyone to pay child support. I will argue, however, that chemical sterilization is the wrong punishment to achieve this goal.

C1) 8th Amendment

The Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." Federal court precedent is that forced sterilization is considered cruel and/or unusual. Harry Hamilton Laughlin in his book "Eugenical sterilization in the United States" writes, "The decision of the United States District Court in the Nevada case seems to indicate that as a rule the American states will not tolerate punitive sterilization." [3]

There is a double bind here – either my opponent's new law will be overturned by the court system, rendering it completely ineffective OR my opponent's law will be allowed to violate the 8th Amendment, thus rendering the 8th Amendment ineffectual. If the 8th Amendment can be violated, people have no protections against cruel and unusual punishments, like being skinned alive.

C2) More effective enforcement

There are many better ways to enforce child support payments than CS.

a. States have found success by mandating that child support be automatically deducted from a non-custodial parent's paycheck. [4]

b. Other places have had success confiscating a non-custodial parent's property, like his car, if he fails to pay child support. [5] The profits from the sale of said property could be used to pay the owed child support.

c. Parents can currently be jailed (for contempt of court) for failing to pay child support. [6]

d. States also revoke the driving privileges of non-custodial parents who fail to pay child support. "According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, every state has some version of a law that revokes licenses of parents who fail to pay child support." [7]

All of the above methods should be sufficient to ensure that non-custodial parents pay child support. We do not need to resort to sterilization as punishment.

C3) More humane sterilization

I do not advocate sterilization as a punishment, but if my opponent were to somehow win that this punishment is desirable, there are more humane methods of sterilization other than chemical.

Both CC and surgical sterilization would be preferable to CS because both are reversible. If a "deadbeat parent" reforms his ways and makes consistent child support payments over a period of years, the State should allow this individual to reverse the sterilization process.

Proof: my sources under definitions prove that CC is reversible whereas CS is not. Surgical vasectomies are also reversible. [8] Tube tying procedures can also be reversed, if the non-custodial parent is female. [9]

Because there are more humane and legal ways to achieve the same result that the pro advocates, I urge a Con ballot.

[1] http://www.fhi.org...
[2] http://findarticles.com...
[3] http://books.google.com...
[4] http://news.sc...
[5] http://www.nationalpost.com...
[6] http://divorce.clementlaw.com...
[7] http://divorce.clementlaw.com...
[8] http://www.vasectomyinfo.com...
[9] http://infertility.lifetips.com...
Debate Round No. 1
acbriggs

Pro

Thank you for the clarification of definitions, I mistakenly omitted that in my original posting.
Let me address my choice of CS as opposed to CC: CS is one (or two) shot deal, thereby removing the temptation to a) 'forget' to show up for treatment, b) 'tongue' the pills , or c) purging by vomiting. I also chose CS as opposed to surgical because of cost effectiveness and in consideration for the fact that the procedure(s) would be performed during a stay at a correctional facility and having someone fresh (or near to it) out of surgery would, in essence, be like ringing the dinner bell. Also consideration was given to the fact that surgical sterilization is far less invasive for males than females, and the chances of the tubes 'untying' is greater than the vas rejoining. If pregnancy did occur (about 1:200 chance)[1] after tubal ligation, the resulting pregnancy would almost certainly be ectopic, forcing the need for yet another medical procedure (an abortion) before the fallopian tube ruptures, which could result in death for the woman.

==Rebuttal for your rebuttal==
Females may be more apt to participant in unprotected sex due to the promise of child support, but males would not. Just because a female wants to have unprotected sex does not mean the male has to comply, and vice versa.

C1 response:

In Furman v. Georgia, Justice Brennan outlined 4 principles by which 'cruel and unusual ' punishment is defined
1.The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
2. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
3. "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
4. "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." [2]

Eugenics is defined by Webster's as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed". Punishment, which is what this would be, is defined as " a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure"
Eugenics most certainly meets the above mentioned criteria for 'cruel and unusual' in the fact that it is unnecessary, degrading, and mostly rejected in our society. What I proposed would be a punishment; one in which all parties were/are made aware of the consequences beforehand, much like we handle murderers now. One could argue that to incarcerate a person (especially for life) is degrading (so cruel and unusual) however we do it to criminals everyday. By my opponents broad definition of cruel and unusual, a child molester could argue his/her 8th amendment right NOT to go to jail, and be successful. Most people who are guilty of a crime know the consequences beforehand, therefore morphing those consequences from cruel and unusual to fitting punishments. This would be the case for non-payment of court-ordered child support.

C2 response:
My opponent says, "All of the above methods should be sufficient to ensure that non-custodial parents pay child support. We do not need to resort to sterilization as punishment." when referring to punishments many states have employed. Notice the inclusion of the word 'should'. Children 'should' be born into loving families (not specifically married) that happily stay together. Failing that, parents 'should' split the cost of raising the children equally. If that doesn't happen, non-custodial parents 'should' pay their child support for the benefit of the children, not to keep from going to jail. What people 'should' do and what they actually do are two entirely different things. If my opponent was correct that the above mentioned methods were/are sufficient, we would not be having this debate. The fact exists that, in total disregard for the existing punishments, a percentage of non-custodial parents can not or will not fulfill their child support obligations. Issues present with mentioned methods are as follows:

a. totally contingent upon the non-custodial parent working. The state can't take what they don't make.

b. I did not know about this one, I like it. Only problems are 1) what if the non-custodial parent has nothing in his/her name, 2) amount collected does not meet owed child support, and 3) how much of the amount collect would have to go to recover the cost of confiscating and selling the property?

c. Three hots and a cot. Bonus for the summer and winter months because of the central heating and cooling. For some this would not be what you'd call a punishment, and by extension, would not deter the non-payment.

d. Just because you do not have a license, does not mean the car will not start. Thousands of people drive everyday on a revoke license. Thousands more drive without ever having one in the first place. This is only a problem if they get caught while driving. This would generate another problem; which crime do you punish first, driving on a suspended/revoke license, or the original non-payment? If the punishment for non-payment was to be no driving, and you were caught driving, were you then ever truly punished for the non-payment?

C3 response:
I believe I covered this in my opening rebuttal. Let me add one more point.
If CC or surgical means are employed, and are later reversed because the non-custodial parent has 'seen the light', what would be in place to ensure they didn't bring more children into the world and then 'fall off the wagon', thus leaving the original children without support once again, the new children without support, and reducing the likelihood of the non-custodial parent being able to meet the now double child support. Yes, some may reform and never have to undergo CC or surgical sterilizations a second time, but I present to you that they are going to be in the minority. Most that would reform and satisfy their obligations after a reversible procedure, would start out satisfying their obligations before a permanent procedure.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://contraception.about.com...
bluesteel

Con

Thanks acbriggs.

I'll cover my opponent's opening statement under C3.

==Her case==

---unprotected sex---

My opponent agrees that this argument is a wash – drop this argument from my opponent's case.

==My case==

C1) 8th Amendment

My opponent cites Justice Brennan's 4 standards under which something might be deemed to violate the 8th Amendment. If I show forced sterilization violates ANY of these standards then I prove that it violates the 8th Amendment.

1. "Punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity"

Nothing can be more degrading than to force someone to be sterilized. In pop culture, severing a male's scrotum is among the most degrading acts one can possibly perform. Sexuality is a core aspect of identity. The forced and invasive denial of sexuality is inherently degrading to human dignity.

The International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) says that forced sterilization in Namibia is horribly degrading because it violates "the right to non-interference in one's privacy, the right to health, and the right to reproductive self-determination." [1] In addition, the Council of Europe condemns the forced sterilization of sex offenders in the Czech Republic as horribly degrading. [2] "The United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity." [3]

2. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."

Sterilizing people with two or more children is arbitrary. There is no reason that the number has to be 2 – it could be one, three, four, five, or more. The number two is completely arbitrary.

Also, sterilizing only the poor would be seen as arbitrary. My opponent says that prior to sterilization, the individual will have a chance to pay all the child support he owes. Only poor people would be forced to submit to sterilization. The issue is not refusing to pay child support, but the inability to pay. Society would view this policy as discriminatory and thus arbitrary.

3. "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."

There are no polls available on American viewpoints on forced sterilization, but considering the massive backlash against John Holdren's (Obama's science czar) compulsory sterilization views, it is quite clear that the American people wholly reject the idea of forced sterilization. [4] In addition, I've cited three sources already showing that the practice is widely condemned.

4. "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

I prove under C2 that there are other forms of punishment available, making forced sterilization patently unnecessary.

---Prior notification---

My opponent argues that sterilization cannot be cruel and unusual because people will be notified about this punishment beforehand. This standard could be used to justify ANY punishment. People can be notified ahead of time that driving over the speed limit will result in having the offender skinned alive. Prior notification doesn't make skinning someone alive any less cruel. The 8th Amendment applies, whether or not people are notified ahead of time.

---Jail---

My opponent claims that jail could be said to be cruel and unusual, but offers no explanation. Jail is currently the least cruel form of punishment for rape and murder. In addition, jail is not unusual – it has been an accepted form of punishment since ancient times.

C2) More effective enforcement

a. Automatic paycheck deductions

My opponent responds that this is "totally contingent upon the non-custodial parent working." This is true. However, my opponent says in Round 1 that CS "should also not be considered if the custodial parent has fallen on hard time." Presumably, unemployment would qualify as falling on hard times.

In addition, my opponent has pointed out in the previous round that child support is calculated based on how much the non-custodial parent earns. If the non-custodial parent is perpetually unemployed, he or she would not be required to pay child support in the United States.

b. Confiscate property

My opponent says, "what if the non-custodial parent has nothing in his/her name?"

Then presumably he or she has fallen on hard times and would not be required to pay child support anyway. Being homeless is considered "hard times."

My opponent asks what if the "amount collected does not meet owed child support?" If the State confiscates a car and sells it for $5000, the child will get $5000 (even if this is less than owed). If the State punishes the non-custodial parent only with sterilization, the child gets nothing.

My opponent asks "how much of the amount collect [sic] would have to go to recover the cost of confiscating and selling the property?"

Presumably, the State would only confiscate property that merited the cost of confiscation and sale.

c. Jail time

My opponent claims that jail is comfy for some people. Putting aside the incidence of rape and violence in prison, prison is still not a nice place to stay for anyone except the homeless. If someone were homeless, he or she would not be required to pay child support in the first place.

d. Revoked license

Driving on a revoked license is a serious crime, punishable with 90 days in prison on the first offense and 1 year in prison on the second offense. [5] Someone wealthy enough to own a car would most likely not enjoy prison and would thus not drive on a revoked license. Most people would find having their license revoked horribly inconvenient and would thus pay child support to have it reinstated.

My opponent asks which crime will be punished first. The more serious crime is usually punished first, which would be driving on a revoked license.

C3) More humane sterilization

I don't really think I have to win this point; I think I've already proved that forced sterilization is cruel and unusual and will thus be overturned by the courts and also that there are better enforcement mechanisms.

However, I'll keep arguing this point, just for the sake of argument.

---CC---

My opponent claims people would skip treatment; however, this would violate their probation agreement, and they would be sent back to jail.

My opponent claims people can tongue the pill or vomit; however, chemical castration can be administered via injection.

My opponent claims, without evidence, that CS is more cost effective than CC.

---Surgical sterilization---

My opponent claims that tube tying is invasive. She provides no evidence for this claim. In addition, women are very unlikely to be the non-custodial parent. Lastly, CC is much easier to administer to women. CC in women is already widely used in the form of a birth control shot, administered once every 3 months. [6] Surgical sterilization would more likely be used on men.

My opponent points out the potential for recidivism – that there might be repeat offenders. Her solution is that we should eliminate the potential for recidivism. Under her logic, we should jail every offender for life or subject every criminal to capital punishment. The goal of criminal justice, especially in this case, should be rehabilitation. The child will benefit more if the non-custodial parent reforms his ways and sends consistent child support checks. If the non-custodial parent is permanently sterilized, he has no incentive afterwards to pay child support, since he cannot be sterilized twice, so he can no longer be punished if you adopt my opponent's punishment for non-payment.

I ask you to reject the inhumane and ineffective punishment of forced castration by voting Con.

==Citations==

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
acbriggs

Pro

This being the final round, I must pause for a moment to thank my opponent. I understand this can be a very emotional subject on many levels for many people. I recognize, applaud, and appreciate my opponents ability to remain factual and not engage in personal attacks. I have found it difficult at times to keep from sticking my tongue out as I am quite adamant about this particular subject. So, once again, thank you for keeping it civil.

C1 response:
I do not agree the 8th amendment is germaine to this debate for reasons mentioned in my previous post. In parentis loco and parens patriae supercede the 8th amendment rights and civil liberties of the parents, simply because the inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" [1]bestowed upon the existing child(ren) at birth are always of paramount importance for society as a whole, enforceable by our government (not the government of Namibia). Existing children can not have sustainable life without the financial support of the two individuals that consciously (and consensually) brought them into this world. They can not appreciate liberty, because liberty must be attained in our existing society, and in order to attain it, they would have to be nurtured emotionally AND financially until such age as they could see to their own needs. They also would be less able to pursue happiness due to fact that their existence would be in jeopardy on a daily basis. The amendment that is germaine and supports my premise is the 14th amendment[2], which promises to ALL citizens (maybe, might-be, someday children are not citizens) equal protection under the law. It has been demonstrated countless times that strict scrutiny[3] favors the liberties and rights of the 'helpless' (i.e. children) above those of adults capable of fighting for themselves. One excellent example is that of child pornography. We, as Americans, value nothing as profoundly as our freedom to be left alone, and the freedom to do as we see fit within the confines of our own homes. In direct opposition to our right to privacy, a person in their own home viewing material with children in sexually exploitative posses, are guilty of a crime and are punished accordingly. The rights of the child here have outweighed the liberties of the adult.

C2 response:
a. Perpetual unemployment is not hard times, it is a lifestyle choice. Just because someone chooses to perpetually be unemployed does not absolve them of their obligations and/or responsibilities, ESPECIALLY where children are concerned. Remove this from my opponents argument.

b. http://www.pacode.com.... Remove this from my opponents argument

c. The non-custodial parent is not actually being jailed for non-payment. The jail time is for contempt of court[4] which carries the same punishment if you are 'failure to appear' or 'failure to pay'. As this was not designed as a method of ensuring payment exclusively, and carries no more time/cost than any other contempt of court, remove it from my opponents argument.

d. The State Highway Patrol in Missouri alone hands out an estimated 50 tickets per day to unlicensed drivers[5]. That is over 18000 per year. This number does not take into account the volume of tickets local law enforcement officers issue to unlicensed drivers. Statistically speaking, a percentage of these drivers fall below the poverty line, therefore would not be considered 'wealthy' at all. Remove this from my opponents argument.

I take great offense to you stating that driving on a revoked license is more serious a crime than not providing for a child. If the United States government were of the same mind, under-privileged persons would receive 'gas stamps' for their car instead of food stamps for their kid.

C3)
My opponents argument for CC and/or SS would be just as forced in its administration as my CS and therefore subject to his definition of cruel and unusual punishment. Let us also not forget that CC negatively affects a males sex drive[6], unlike SS or CS, which would in fact be MORE degrading (and so would meet the first requirement for cruel and unusual more readily). To put it very commonly (and perhaps a bit off color), it is better to be shooting blanks and not have to tell anyone, than it would be to have to explain why you can't raise the gun. My opponents argument for CC as a more humane approach should be discounted, leaving the other arguments for CC a moot point. Remove this from my opponents argument.

The existing child would benefit when/if the non-custodial parent reforms his/her ways regardless of whether he/she had undergone CS. If it is in the heart, mind, and morals of the non-custodial parent to one day begin/resume paying his/her child support, he/she will do it for the benefit of the child, regardless of past punishments. Remove this from my opponents argument.

I implore you to vote pro to the chemical sterilization of those who, through their own actions, have chosen it for their punishment. I also urge you to consider the benefits to the existing children, and remember the only 'force' my opponent is arguing for, is the forced deprivation and demoralization of future children unfortunate enough to be created by those, who through their previous actions, have proved to be irresponsible and neglectful.

[1]http://www.ushistory.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[4]http://www.child-support-laws-state-by-state.com...
[5]http://www.abc17news.com...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
bluesteel

Con

I like to thank my opponent for a great debate.

==Rebuttal==

C1) 8th Amendment

My opponent drops all my arguments from the previous round. She concedes that forced sterilization violates all 4 of Justice Brennan's standards for cruel and unusual punishment. The standards are such that if a punishment violates any of them, it is deemed cruel and unusual.

1. Acbriggs concedes that the punishment is "degrading to human dignity" by conceding the evidence from the ICW, the Council of Europe, and the United Nations. She also concedes my analysis that male castration is held up in pop culture as the ultimate form of degradation.

2. She drops the argument that the punishment is "arbitrary" since the resolution has no explanation for why it must be "2 or more children" and not "1 or more" or "3 or more." In addition, the punishment is arbitrary because rich people can always avoid forced sterilization by paying the child support on the spot, so it is only applied to the poor.

3. She drops that forced sterilization is "rejected throughout society," and my analysis regarding the backlash against John Holdren's previous statements on forced sterilization.

4. She drops that forced sterilization is "unnecessary" since there are other methods of enforcement.

My opponent's new argument (leaving aside that new argument shouldn't be made in the final round) is that the rights of the child can justify violating the liberty of the parents.

First, the legal doctrines my opponent cites do not completely revoke parental liberty. "In the United States, the parental liberty doctrine imposes constraints upon the operation of the in loco parentis doctrine." [1] This means that the rights of the child do not mean you can do whatever you want to the parents. Second, I question whether forced sterilization is even in the best interest of the child. Under C3 in the previous round, I brought up the argument that once the non-custodial parent is punished through forced sterilization, he has no incentive to ever pay child support again because he cannot be sterilized twice, so he cannot be punished again. Any form of punishment that actually induces payment would be in the child's best interest, but forced sterilization does not accomplish this end. In fact, forced sterilization would merely make the non-custodial parent resentful of his children.

---14th Amendment---

My opponent claims children have a right to equal protection, which she takes as a right to be equally as wealthy as other children. Firstly, only a complete redistribution of wealth could make all children equally wealthy. Second, orphans have no parents and are going to be worse off, no matter what, than someone who has a loving, income-earning custodial parent. Most people would rather have a single parent than be an orphan. Lastly, the 14th Amendment doesn't mean that everyone is the U.S. has to be equal. The 14th Amendment is "equal protection UNDER THE LAW," meaning that laws should not be applied differently to different groups of people. My opponent's law actually violates the 14th Amendment because she gives non-custodial parents a chance to pay the child support in full instead of being sterilized. Society would view this as the rich being able to pay their way out of a punishment that the poor cannot avoid. Imagine if the rich could pay $100 million to avoid the death penalty. Society would view my opponent's forced sterilization law in a similar fashion.

---Child pornography---

First, there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Second, the 8th Amendment is not a protection of rights (unlike the 1st Amendment), it is a limit on State power. It is like the prohibition on ex post facto laws (a retroactive punishment for something that was not illegal at the time). Since the 8th Amendment limits State power, it is different from violating privacy rights.

---Nevada Court Case---

All these arguments are irrelevant, since the courts have already made a ruling on punitive sterilization. We don't have to argue and guess what the courts would do; we have direct evidence of what they would do. Extend my Harry Hamilton Laughlin evidence from round one that the Nevada federal district court ruled that punitive sterilization violates the 8th Amendment. My opponent's law would be overturned immediately.

C2) Better enforcement

a. Automatic paycheck deduction

My opponent never really answers that this solves most of the problem. She thinks that people who are perpetually unemployed are just lazy, and it is a lifestyle choice. However, most unemployed people who have trouble finding work are unemployed because they have no marketable skills.

According to the 2008 Time Use Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average unemployed person looks for work every single day and spends a significant amount of time increasing his or her education levels or acquiring technical training. [2]

b. Confiscating property

My opponent just cites a link here. The link says nothing about the merits of confiscating property. My opponent thus concedes that confiscating a non-custodial parents' property and selling it would be a good enforcement mechanism and would successfully force the parent to pay child support.

c. Jail time

If a non-custodial parent shows up to court proceedings but fails to pay child support, he may be sent to jail. My opponent doesn't argue against my analysis that jail is a huge incentive for most people (the non-homeless) to act in a certain way.

d. Revoked license

My opponent cites that there are many unlicensed drivers in Missouri. Her own evidence explains why: Missouri is one of the states where driving on a revoked license does not carry a mandatory jail sentence, but merely a fine. Unlicensed driving does carry mandatory jail time in most states (most states punish first offenders with 6 months in prison). [3]

My opponent claims dodging child support is a worse crime than driving on a revoked license, but considering the type of people who have their licenses revoked (drunk drivers, half-blind old people who miserably fail their driving test), I think driving on a revoked license is worse since it greatly endangers public safety.

C3) Other sterilization options

If you (the judge) agree with my C1 and C2, then ignore C3. I believe all sterilization is cruel and unusual and there are better option. If, however, you agree with my opponent that sterilization is a good punishment, then vote on C3.

Chemical castration

Would only be used on females in the form of a birth control shot, once every 3 months.

Surgical sterilization

My opponent has no real answer to this. Surgical sterilization is more humane since it is reversible, and thus it is more likely to pass muster in the court system.

==Round summary==

The standard for weighing this round should be what is in the best interests of the child and society.

1. The child

My proposed punishments under C2 (most of which are used in the status quo), including automatic paycheck deduction, confiscation of property, jail time, and license revocation, all give non-custodial parents a huge incentive to stay current on child support payments. Forced sterilization does not. If we replace all the current enforcement methods with forced sterilization, then as soon as the non-custodial parent is sterilized, he can never be punished again and will never pay child support. The child would prefer to have the money.

2. Society

Society has an interest in upholding the 8th Amendment. Otherwise, the U.S. would be like Singapore, where people are caned for littering and put to death for doing cocaine. People could be skinned alive as punishment. Allowing cruel and unusual punishments is a very slippery slope.

A Con vote is in the best interest of everyone involved. Please vote Con.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Lol
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@acbriggs

That was it...the third url that I already posted was my remaining characters
Posted by acbriggs 6 years ago
acbriggs
Bluesteel, please post the remaining characters either here as a comment, or you can email them directly to me. I posted and engaged in this debate simply to fulfill a publishing requirement for Comp, but am very interested in what you are saying (even though this debate does not exactly line up with my personal opinion, the subject is being used to cover a separate requirement in a separate course.) Thanx
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
RFD: It was kinda unfair on Con's part to not provide a standard for the round until the very last segment of the debate, because Pro was not able to use con's standard to weigh the round anyways. So, disregarding that, I'll default to a strictly a cost-benefit analysis. Pro dropped most of Con's arguments (fairly persistently, I might add) throughout the round. The problems we have in the issue of child support are, in a nutshell and from my recollection:

-inability to pay
-neglect
-cruel/unusual punishment; humanity of punishment
-the "best" punishment

Con's case by far solved for the arguments best; Pro seemed to get a little emotional when it came down to the facts. Issues totally resolved by Con, unanswered by Pro:

-CS is a violation of 8th amendment; double-bind unresolved
-Jail, revoked license, property confiscation seemed effective; response was insufficient by Pro

The alternatives provided to CS by Con seemed to solve CS's problems and the problems CS did not address. In conclusion,

Conduct: Con, for remaining totally objective. Pro did get a little emotional at a few points, detracting from her etiquette, in my eyes.

S&G: tied.

Convincing Arguments: Con. See above.

Reliable Sources: Con, for clearly having a higher quantity of sources, a higher rate of relevancy of sources, and a more direct engagement and use of sources. E.g. Pro said "b. http://www.pacode.com....... Remove this from my opponents argument" I don't buy that.

6 points Con.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Had 51 characters left but got cut off...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...
Posted by acbriggs 6 years ago
acbriggs
A Note on my purposeful exclusion of a response concerning Obama's science czar; I presume everyone reading this debate is aware of the difference between the sterilization of parents with illegitimate children regardless of their fulfillment of their obligations (which is what John Holdren advocates), and the sterilization of those who have proved their irresponsibility multiple times.
Posted by ewo2 6 years ago
ewo2
yikes.
Posted by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
Quick question. Aren't records about delinquent child support payments public record?
Posted by acbriggs 6 years ago
acbriggs
THE_OPINIONATOR, a response
If the parent of the child(ren) in question has here-to-fore fulfilled his/her obligations but has fallen on hard times, arrangements should be made by that party to amend the child support order. This amendment request would be reviewed by a third-party (such as a mediator, NOT the custodial parent), and if found to merit approval, a new TEMPORARY support order would be drafted and a copy served to the custodial parent prior to first payment made under the new guidelines. This would reduce the number of emotions tied to the proceedings and hopefully speed the process along. If the non-custodial parent has never been able to pay his/her child support (or has simply refused, which rarely, but occasionally does occur) and continues to be guilty of non-payment for a pre-specified amount of time, a warrant should be issued for his/her arrest. Upon incarceration, the medical personnel at the detention center (or the local hospital if the area of the country is too small to warrant a large enough facility to house a medical unit) will begin the chemical sterilization process, after verification of the non-custodial parents prior knowledge of the consequences for non-payment. Hope this answers your question
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
what if the person paying for the child support is unable to pay
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
acbriggsbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
acbriggsbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
acbriggsbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06