The Instigator
DarkBitch
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Harlan
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,468 times Debate No: 5072
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (10)

 

DarkBitch

Pro

I believe that any female who is using illegal drugs/narcotics should be forced by the law too take contraception in order too prevent them giving birth too drug addicted babies.
I believe any woman who is taking drugs such as heroin, cocaine etc should not be allowed too get pregnant. Too many babies are born too scumbag women who are in no fit state too care for themselves yet alone a baby.

I think any woman who gives birth too a drug addicted baby should be charged with child abuse.
Harlan

Con

I would like to point out that "Drugs" can include medication…such as contraceptives, rendering your whole argument illogical. Though, because that wouldn't be a very fun debate (if I left it at that), Ill ignore that. However since I have chosen to ignore your faulty wording, I am forced to make my own interpretation.

You are probably talking not about drugs in general but…*DRUUUUGSSSSSSS!!!!!*. So for this debate I will pretend there is some difference between them.

Laws such as making abortion illegal, making suicide illegal, and many others are all a progression to bureaucracy over the human body, which must be prevented at all costs. To force by law for someone to take a drug is a scary thought. People should at the very least have control over the happenings of their own bodies.

And every one should have the right to carry out their biological purpose; to follow the oldest of commands; to be fruitful and multiply. People should have this right no matter what.

Drugs are a strong part of culture, and for the people of these cultures to discontinue reproducing would quickly eradicate that culture…. like breeding dogs.

Your argument revolves around mind destroying drugs such as heroine and cocaine. Drugs such as marijuana and tobacco must not be lumped in that same category, however. Surely you would not want to keep someone from having a child simply because they smoke cigarettes or marijuana. Many very good-hearted people take marijuana or smoke cigarettes. Drugs like these do not necessarily inhibit your parenting abilities.

Also, there will always be exceptions. To say that every single person who does drugs of any kind can never have a child is harsh and unforgiving, only looking at the large; the over-generalization, and not the exceptions that cant have a child even though they would be quite capable of taking care of the child well.

This kind of law will only lead to more kinds of laws such as "Mentally retarded people can't have children", "poor people can't have children", or "people with diseases can't have children". I think we should draw the line here and say everyone can have children. Having children is the human privilege that laws cannot take away.

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 1
DarkBitch

Pro

You start your argument with

"I would like to point out that "Drugs" can include medication…such as contraceptives, rendering your whole argument illogical."

Ok I CLEARLY stated "illegal drugs", Such as "Heroin, cocaine etc".
The last time I looked "medication" and "contraception" is not generally illegal, So immediately your off point, Also you did not choose too ignore my "faulty wording" (as you put it) you made a comment about it (Just for the record) anyway...

"To force by law for someone to take a drug is a scary thought. People should at the very least have control over the happenings of their own bodies."

So what about the rights of the baby? A baby has absolutely no control whatsoever over what happens to its body, It is completely defenceless against anything a mother chooses to do.

Cocaine...............

Cocaine abuse during pregnancy is associated with various maternal and fetal problems. Cocaine, is a central nervous system stimulant. It has vasoconstrictive effects, significantly decreasing blood flow to the fetus, resulting in periods of decreased oxygen. Many cocaine users use other drugs, exposing the fetus to many drugs, compounding the problems. For women who use cocaine throughout pregnancy it has been proven that they are at a greater risk for premature births of their babes, and a greater chance of delivering still born babies.

Heroin.............

Heroin easily crosses the placenta, An unborn fetus exposed to heroin has an increased rate of infection. Babies born to mothers who used heroin during pregnancy are also associated with a decrease in birth weight, and an increase in stillbirths.

Fetal Addiction of Heroin............

Babies born to mothers who have a heroin addiction have a very difficult time and must stay in the hospital to receive treatment for withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms include hyperactivity, convulsions, diarrhea, fever, sleep abnormalities, and respiratory distress. Once they are discharged from the hospital they may even experience abnormal breathing patterns during sleep, thus increasing the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome seen in these children.

The effects of maternal heroin addiction may persist in the offspring for an extended period of time, resulting in poor growth and development. They may demonstrate behavioral abnormalities, including impaired organization and perception skills, impaired motor inhibition and mental retardation.

Also as for your argument in regards to Marijuana -

"Your argument revolves around mind destroying drugs such as heroine and cocaine. Drugs such as marijuana and tobacco must not be lumped in that same category, however. Surely you would not want to keep someone from having a child simply because they smoke cigarettes or marijuana."

A lot of mothers may believe that smoking marijuana does not jeopardize their unborn child. However, on the contrary, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active ingredient of marijuana can cross the placenta, so the potential for damage to the fetus does exist.
So your wrong again! Also Marijuana is a mind altering drug so yes it can inhibit parental abilities.

All children need protecting from abuse including unborn children,
A woman's rights to bear children should be suspended until she is in a position both physically and mentally and socially to have a child.
I shall save the rest of my argument for my closing statement.
Harlan

Con

"Ok I CLEARLY stated "illegal drugs", Such as "Heroin, cocaine etc".
The last time I looked "medication" and "contraception" is not generally illegal, So immediately your off point, Also you did not choose too ignore my "faulty wording" (as you put it) you made a comment about it (Just for the record) anyway..."

No, I am in fact not off point. You stated that in your ARGUMENT but NOWHERE in the header of this debate. The subject of this debate is: "Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception". That is the only subject of this debate: no more, no less.

I could make the header of a debate say: "I like pie". In my opening argument, however, no matter how much I went on about 9/11 being an inside job, the debate is still technically about me liking pie.

Therefore my point still stands: Drugs can include contraceptives.

"So what about the rights of the baby? A baby has absolutely no control whatsoever over what happens to its body, It is completely defenceless against anything a mother chooses to do."

The same thing goes for a baby getting genes that make him ugly, or that cause them to get a mental disorder. With your very same logic it could be argued that people of a certain IQ, people with mental disorders, or people with diseases cannot have children. Do you agree with those? If not, then how is your argument separate from these in any fashion?

"Cocaine..............."

"Heroin............."

You are only focusing on the worst drugs. What about tobacco? Whole generations of people have smoked cigarettes, and the next generation didn't seem too bad.

"A lot of mothers may believe that smoking marijuana does not jeopardize their unborn child. However, on the contrary, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active ingredient of marijuana can cross the placenta, so the potential for damage to the fetus does exist."

You stated that the chemical can cross the placenta, but did not further explain how it would damage the fetus. IF there is a "potential", then it is very small. Marijuana is not an addictive drug, and therefore would most likely have little or no effect on the child.

"Also Marijuana is a mind altering drug so yes it can inhibit parental abilities."

It can, but there are responsible people who don't let it. And do not get themselves really stoned constantly when they have kids.

My opponents suggested law is over generalizing, and unforgiving. It does not think of those who are the exceptions. There are people out there who are responsible and moderate.

Her suggested law would eradicate many cultures, as well.

It is a gateway to more laws that will prevent people with bad genes from having children.

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 2
DarkBitch

Pro

"No, I am in fact not off point."

We shall have to agree to disagree on that one, arguing over such a trivial thing is a waste of time when we have more important issues to address.
I don't go for cheap point scoring.

"The same thing goes for a baby getting genes that make him ugly"

No that would be way too discriminative, A person should not be discriminated against because of how they look.
A woman can't choose whether or not her baby is born "ugly" ok so there may be indicators of the possibility if she has a face like the back end of a boeing 747 or if the father fell from the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down! Also what is classed as ugly too one person may be viewed as beauty by another.

A woman giving birth too a drug addicted baby because she has CHOSEN too take illegal drugs during her pregnancy without any regard for the pain and suffering she is inflicting on her baby can not be classed the same as a person who has passed on something through a faulty gene.
You do make a valid point however and I can understand your thinking but my debate is regarding illegal drugs not genes and diseases.

"You are only focusing on the worst drugs. What about tobacco? Whole generations of people have smoked cigarettes, and the next generation didn't seem too bad."

You obviously have no clue when it comes too the effect tobacco has on a fetus.
Smoking during pregnancy can cause serious problems including complications during labour, increased risk of miscarriage, premature birth and even stillbirth.
Cigarette smoke contains over 1000 different compounds including carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, carcinogens.
The two main compounds suspected of causing the harmful effects on the developing fetus during pregnancy are carbon monoxide and nicotine.

Carbon monoxide has a higher affinity for hemoglobin than oxygen, quickly
forming the compound carboxyhemoglobin which is unable to carry oxygen.
The formation of this molecule leads to a potential for decreased oxygen
delivery to the fetus and fetal hypoxia which can lead too
a number of damaging effects including brain damage.

"IF there is a "potential", then it is very small. Marijuana is not an addictive drug, and therefore would most likely have little or no effect on the child."

Marijuana has been shown to affect babies,
We know that marijuana crosses the placenta, and can be found in the newborns body for up to a month after a single use.
Just like smoking tobacco, it causes less oxygen and food to get to the baby. This factor alone affects your baby's growth and brain development.
Newborns of mothers who have used marijuana throughout pregnancy cry more. Some studies suggest that children exposed to marijuana while in the womb are at increased risk for attention disorders and learning problems that might not show up until school age.

"It can, but there are responsible people who don't let it. And do not get themselves really stoned constantly when they have kids."

marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory.
someone who smokes marijuana may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.
Point made! I wouldn't want them looking after my children!

http://www.nida.nih.gov...

"My opponents suggested law is over generalizing, and unforgiving. It does not think of those who are the exceptions. There are people out there who are responsible and moderate."

My law would stop female Heroin/Cocaine/illegal drug users from getting pregnant and inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering too babies.

Also many addicts who get pregnant do so accidentally, My law would not only protect the babies but would also protect the women from unwanted pregnancies.
Babies brought up by such woman are often neglected and abused the authorities often have too take them away. No child deserves this just because some crack head wants to get high and have sex!
Harlan

Con

Harlan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CRL 5 years ago
CRL
Yes, but if you could successfully arrest all (or even most) drug users, we wouldn't really have to worry about this. Also, with the sentencing system as messed up as it is, they'd probably be serving a sentence longer than three years. Jails aren't co-ed, so we don't have to worry about people getting pregnant in jail. If we are to give them the contraceptives upon release, that would assume that every drug user will relapse, which means we REALLY need to fix our justice system/drug laws, rather than passing laws like this one.
Posted by DarkBitch 5 years ago
DarkBitch
Sure you could, They could be arrested and then given a 3 year contraceptive implant.
Posted by CRL 5 years ago
CRL
Slight problem: if you can't keep someone from taking drugs, how can you ensure that you take the drugs they are supposed to? You can't.
Posted by xeberus 8 years ago
xeberus
"So what about the rights of the baby?"

It is not a baby nor does it have rights until it takes its first breath of air on its own.

You crippled your argument, Con wins.
Posted by DarkBitch 8 years ago
DarkBitch
"DarkBitch, is your gothic avatar really you?"

:) yes
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
DarkBitch, is your gothic avatar really you?
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I would've voted for Harlan, had he not forfeited...
Posted by DarkBitch 8 years ago
DarkBitch
"Furthermore, it bothers me that you always misspell 'to' as 'too'."

Iv apoligised for this already.

God It really bothers me when people nit pick.
Posted by rshortman 8 years ago
rshortman
I'm not totally against the idea of enforcing contraception on illegal drug users as long as enforced within reason. For example, a woman who is arrested several times for possession of crack/cocaine or heroin and has come up positive for opiates time and time again should be court ordered to take a contraceptive pill for a certain period of time or until she can prove that she is rehabilitated.

Furthermore, it bothers me that you always misspell 'to' as 'too'. Almost nullifies your argument in my opinion.
Posted by DarkBitch 8 years ago
DarkBitch
My argument may not be perfect but I havent had much spare time lately, I have 20month old twin babies and a 3 month old baby lol
Time is precious and so are babies lol
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by xeberus 8 years ago
xeberus
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DarkBitch 8 years ago
DarkBitch
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Katie01 8 years ago
Katie01
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
DarkBitchHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30