Only Those of a Stable and Adequate Income Should be Allowed to Bear Children
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
https://www.childwelfare.gov... of State laws
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.
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 census.gov 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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.