The Instigator
mourishwaran
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mukoja
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 37907
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

mourishwaran

Pro

I believe that Government should have control over births of children in family. You just cannot reproduce how many times you want to... The authority should rest in the hands of government. Although one child must be allowed compulsorily.
mukoja

Con

If the government has the power to regulate the number of children a family can have... how is it going to possible to police such a law? The number of children a family can have, must and should remain in the hands of the husband and wife, government should only step in when the parents fail to provide upkeep for their kids.. Its naive to force couples to have children, because again this is not the prerogative of the government. What then happens to those couples who can't have children?
Debate Round No. 1
mourishwaran

Pro

Government has the power to stop you from taking a life, then it should also have the right to stop you from creating one. People end up having two or three children whom they cannot take care and then government has to step in and take care of kids, This is not good for society. Over population is going to big problem in future.

Resources available are less than required at most of the fields, Government has to take survey and asses the population with resources, Child birth is happening 24X7 globally and government is blamed for not providing apt life to people.
mukoja

Con

laws are subject to the moral fiber of a society, that being said all laws are the reflection of a society's moral standing, accordingly some morals are inertly engrained in us by a higher power, e.g the sanctity of human life. Therefore the government did not enact that killing is bad..it just reaffirmed that moral standing. No one can create human life as we know it, and its only absurd to allow politicians to control how many lives are brought into this world.

Have you taken time imagine the consequences of the measures you propose? this will inevitably lead to forced castration
Debate Round No. 2
mourishwaran

Pro

I agree that government did not establish that killing is bad, But it has control over it. Can you imagine what will happen if government declares that it will not arrest people for murder charges. All i am saying is that there should be proper ratio between births and deaths in society.
You can control birth only in your family and may be your friends families, what about rest of the world. People are ignorant of what is really happening and decide what is good for them, Government has the power and control over its people.
We are here at this point of the world because some people made sacrifices, All i am asking is for us to make some sacrifices for a better Future of entire Earth.
At the current rate there will lot of problems in future, i am sure you don't believe life is possible on mars.
i know that over population is not only the cause for problems in society but if population is controlled there will enough of everything for most of the people and there will be less problem in society.
mukoja

Con

You say proper ratio between births & deaths? Who then will decide who lives and who doesn't? whether its time to increase births or deaths, politicians? This amount of power should never be vested in a human being. You should know that nature has a way of balancing the equation, you might want to research on the consequences of removing wolves in a park in the USA, this only lead to total disintegration of the ecosystem and temporary extinction of certain fauna & flora.

I believe the "sacrifices" you call are only fair if they are made by certain people, which excludes your family
Debate Round No. 3
mourishwaran

Pro

Nature has a way of balancing things, Okay only up to certain limit. Nature cannot restore everything, you might want to research on Chernobyl incident. Ice melting in Antarctica, Increase in temperature of earth will not balance itself. I would say these are directly not because of over of over population but indirectly. Most of the forests are converted into urban areas.

Nature is nothing but forests,Hills,Oceans and natural air and land. We keep on damaging these and What do you think will save you.
I would have said Government should not allow marriage for a decade, But i did not say that, all i(we) want is controlled birth rate for a certain period of time ( The time must be decided after survey).
If not in future war will be fought for Food,cloth & Shelter which are the basic needs of life.
mukoja

Con

A controlled birth rate you say? I think wars from time immemorial have been fought over the basic needs.

How do you control birth for a certain period of time, by inserting pills in the food we eat?
Debate Round No. 4
mourishwaran

Pro

Did you read the debate topic, Government should establish a rule over the number of births in a family. They always find a way to make us follow their laws.

We might have faught a few wars for basic needs, but most of wars have been faught for other reasons.

I would follow the rules no matter what, You have condoms right.
The number of male and female births can be equated with few exceptions from time to time.
We are not animals to let our own species go into extinct, we have to make certain decisions like this to ensure better survival of our species.
The time has come to think we all do not belong to different countries but to one species-homosapiens.

We should not create a better world for our children only, we should do it for everybody.
mukoja

Con

mukoja forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 4 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
I didn't post 2 comments. Daheck?
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 4 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
It's not such a bad idea to have a maximum 3 children in some states.
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 4 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
It's not such a bad idea to have a maximum 3 children in some states.
No votes have been placed for this debate.