The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Only Those of a Stable and Adequate Income Should be Allowed to Bear Children

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 497 times Debate No: 78035
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Nowadays it seems getting pregnant is more like a sport than a privilege. All sorts of unfit people are birthing children in not-so-good circumstances. I firmly believe bearing children should be a right given to those only of high education and an income to support both themselves and a growing family.


While I admire your reasoning, this would only work in an ideal world. There is simply no way of regulating who has intercourse that results in children. Furthermore, you would have to find some way of defining "stable and adequate income". Often, circumstances change and there is no way to foresee these changes.There are simply too many variables involved. If for a person who does not fit the criterion were to have their child removed from their care, but in a few years were able to generate enough income to fit the requirements would they get their child back? Or if a person who does fit the criterion were to have their child for several years and then face financial hardship that prevents them from being able to "adequately" care for their child, would the children be taken away from them? In terms of higher education, many people are unable to complete a higher education, but are able to generate a stable income. Would the elite be the only ones to have the "privilege" to bear children? Many pregnancies are unplanned, if the parents decide to keep the child, would they be forced to either abort the child or give the child up for adoption anyway?
Debate Round No. 1


I advise you to check out my links below, especially chapter four of Freakonomics. That being said, absolutely, if at the moment one is not able to properly support a child, then it is their own fault they conceived and therefore must either abort or surrender the child to someone much more capable.

I think it's necessary for the government to provide free contraceptives to the public to limit the population of children born in unsuitable environments, i.e.; homes of drug addicts, alcoholics, abusive members, and those that are poverty stricken. It is absolutely unfair and absurd that an innocent child must be born into these kinds of circumstances. The majority of the children born in these kinds of lifestyles, will most likely resort to the same things as their caregivers or rebel and become ever worse. A great example is looking at the backgrounds of most criminals. They grew up with people dedicated to the life of crime and fell into the trap themselves. However,it would be ignorant of me to say that all kids born in these circumstances will become delinquents themselves. There is also a number of children who find the right path to education and success, which is wonderful, but they had to suffer great hardship to get there, which isn't fair.

I think hospitals, identification services, and government officials should monitor those who decide to birth children and determine if their environment would be suitable. If per say a family got the income they needed after they conceived, the child should have the choice of going back to their original blood family, other than that, this would be an effective and much needed and desired to change to control population, motivate families to get higher educations and higher wages, and give better opportunities to these innocent children who need proper surroundings to succeed.


Many of the cases you mentioned are children that are unplanned. The only way the government would be able to enforce this, would be doing background checks as soon as a mother reports to a hospital, and sometimes they don't. If it were as simple as the government taking children away from broken homes, which they do (the court takes custody) then children wouldn't face the hardships they do. Instead what I would propose is the creation of a program that educates that demographic on the costs and consequences of unplanned pregnancy and the preventative measures that may be taken.
That way the government is not overstepping their bounds by taking away children from their homes without some sort of abuse or neglect taking place, and those who do not wish to have children are more aware of the consequences of unprotected intercourse.

That being said, to address your point of the government monitoring "those who decide to birth children", it does not seem feasible with the limited technology and law enforcement. Furthermore, there already is a relatively effective system to remove children from abusive situations. I am not saying that is foolproof, and I am aware that there are many children who slip under the radar and get caught in the undertow, but there is simply no way the government would be able to expend the resources required to institute such a program. The key here is prevention. The government cannot regulate who decides to have unprotected intercourse because that would mean actively regulating that demographic and given the number of people known to be below the poverty line that would mean actively invading their privacy and expending resources that would be more effectively used elsewhere.

If I were to tell someone that if they were to have unprotected intercourse I would either terminate their rights or take away their children, they would be unlikely to take me seriously if they had no intentions of having a child in the first place. But if I were to educate them on how much time and money it takes to properly raise a child, and they found themselves incapable of doing so, then they would be more likely to listen. Furthermore if I made contraceptives more readily available to them, they would be aware of both the consequences and know what measures to take to prevent an accidental pregnancy.

It is important to remember that those who are not educated in the actions that lead to the consequences will never learn what exactly it is that they are doing wrong. of State laws
Debate Round No. 2


I agree that everyone should be educated to the point they know that every action has consequences. However, many are stubborn and refuse to listen. There are still a large portion of those who don't care for intervention and would rather to live their life their way even if it negatively affects the life of another.

Unfortuantely, unplanned pregnancies are making the quality of life worse for everyone. In the last forty years the population has more than doubled. This planet is overpopulated with no means to control it. Something has to be done even if it means taking some freedom away from people. Parents and kids would benefit much more living comfortably without stress as opposed to the many families that do because they take on too much by caring for more life as they spread themselves too thin. It's like catch 22, people take advantage of the freedom they have but have to realize what kind of effect it has on everyone besides themselves.

If China can have a one child policy, other countries can find a way to control their increasing population.


If you check the links I have posted below, you will find that China's one-child policy, which was established in the 1970s was actually not very successfully enforced. While the rate of population change was 1.9 percent each year, you also have to look at why it was put in place. Previous Chinese governments had encouraged people to have lots of children to increase the workforce. It was eventually realized that this growth in population would eventually become unsustainable and so they created the one-child policy.

Benefits included increased access to education for all in addition to child care and health care benefits. Those who had more than one child did not receive benefits and people in rural areas resisted. It was much easier for the policy to be enforced in urban areas than rural. Additionally, many people claim that women were forced to have an abortion and were forcibly sterilized after having their first child. Due to the traditional preference to boys, many girls ended up in orphanages and in some cases killed. 90% of the fetuses aborted were female. As a result, there are many more men than women in China at the moment. This fall in birth rate is also causing economic problems. The falling birth rate lead to a rise in the relative number in elderly people, but there are fewer people of a working age to support the growing number of elderly dependents.

In terms of enforcement there are two links in the wikipedia source you provided that I found to be very enlightening. The first was from China Daily, which claims that less than 40% of the population is restricted by the family planning policy to having one child. In the majority of the Chinese provinces, couples can have two children if they are only children. Minority groups are free to have two or more children. Couples in rural areas are allowed to have two children if the first is a girl (52.9% of the population). The policy has been adjusted to maintain the birth rate rather than lower it.

The second source is from the Australian. As of 2007, when the article was published, China no longer had a one-child policy. Instead their goal was to reach a population of 1.36 billion by 2010. The government called for a very strict punishment for abortion that was not intended for medical reasons in order to close the gap between the number of males and females in the Chinese population.

If communist China cannot effectively implement controls to the population, then how is it possible that the US democracy would be able to not only reduce the number of births, but entirely restrict certain demographics from having children.

According to the CIA factbook, there are 1.87 children / woman on average in the year 2015. I have also attached a chart by that goes through number of children on average in a family with a.) a single mother, b.) a single father, and c.) a family with both mother and father present: on average is no more than 2.5.

Instead of focusing on the number of 7 billion, which unless there were plans to take out a good portion of the population the US alone could not change, let's redirect our attention to the existing adoption and foster care systems. Many of these systems are abysmal. Children are often separated from their siblings, and are abused by the system that was put in place to protect them. Rather than focus on controlling one demographic, let's fix another. Improving the foster care system and encouraging the adoption of the existing children who are floating around in the system will help control the population in terms of how many children a family is able to handle and helping the children who the system basically ignores. We can encourage those who have a stable and adequate income to take care of these children and thus allow those who cannot care for their children to be secure in the knowledge that they will be cared for in a safe environment.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mobshark 1 year ago
I am frankly loving how obtuse you're being, jam.
Posted by jamccartney 1 year ago
"I think it's necessary for the government to provide free contraceptives to the public"

My reaction to this is conveyed perfectly with this image:
Posted by Ajabi 1 year ago
Eh, I'll vote on this when done.
Posted by mobshark 1 year ago
@jamccartney not when someone else's life is involved
Posted by jamccartney 1 year ago
Freedom > No Freedom
Small Government > Big Government
Freedom to Decide Whether or Not to Get Pregnant > No Freedom to Decide Whether or Not to Get Pregnant
Must I say more?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con, for I am a Libertarian Capitalist and am on the side of freedom. Both debaters used good conduct. They are tied for spelling and grammar. Both debaters made good arguments, but I feel that Con did a better job of presenting an alternative system, while Pro could have done a better job. For that reason, I give Con the argument points. Both used good sources, and I will not count off for Pro's use of Wikipedia as a source. Overall, good debate.