The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should only certain people be allowed to be parents?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
AlexaGeek has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 271 times Debate No: 98386
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




- You're first argument should be a statement of your position.
- The second round should be for rebuttals.
- The third round will be for rebuttals and a summary of our positions.
- No ad hominum or personal attacks. We are defending our positions, not attacking each other.

The position I'm arguing is that only financially stable and healthy households should be allowed to have children. Before I get into fully arguing my case, I want to make it very clear that I don't believe this claim. I am arguing this claim only for the sake of debate. I'm hoping to get a better understanding of both sides of this issue. Now, on to my argument.

The reason households with children should be financially stable is because these households can have access to resources necessary to tend to their children. Without a stable income, parents may become unable to affording important resources like healthcare or electricity. Also, a lack of financial stability is extremely stressful for many households. Parents aren't as likely to have the time or patience to give their children their full attention.

I am going to define a healthy household with the following criteria: at least two mentally and physically healthy adults or teens capable of taking care of the children; no individuals abuse substances; no ellicit activities occur in the household; and no one is abusive to the other individuals in the household. All of the factors ensure that the children themselves are healthy and able to be taken care of. For factors like ellicit activities or abuse, these ensure the children aren't exposed to unnecessary stressors.

Your initial statement of your position can implicitly attack flaws in my own argument, but remember that rebuttals start in round 2.


I thank my interlocutor for conceiving of this interesting question. To summarize, my opponent argues that "healthy households" should bear reproductive license while unhealthy ones should not.

I will argue the extreme "con" position to the above-stated question: in comparison to the burden of "unfreedom" society would pay for sanctioning such a policy, it is preferable that everyone capable of exercising reproductive functions have a right to their exercise despite any subsequent concerns that may occur. In such instances where there is "reproductive over-reach" by irresponsible parents, the tax paid by the state assuming wardenship over a minor is less than the damage society could suffer through making reproduction an object of political conflict.
Debate Round No. 1


I appreciate the argument, and I like the point you brought up.

The main flaw in your argument is that you don't fully establish the burden of "unfreedom," as you put it. How could unfreedom be worse than the collective monetary loss due to taking care of unwanted or abused children's needs? How could the cost of monetarily supporting parents that simply don't have the money be less than unfreedom? Is the cost of unfreedom a philosophical concept, where you feel freedom is inherently valuable? Is the cost of unfreedom a monetary or societal cost that can be measured? If we limit reproduction to healthy families, we can conserve resources to ensure the government and society can actually support the amount of people we have.


My interlocutor’s premise that the value of strict material wealth is superior to the philosophical quality of freedom presumes a valuation of concepts that seems questionable. Namely, of the two alternatives proposed, which is the lesser burden for the public to adopt? And moreover, what should our default valuation be?

My interlocutor suggests the default position ought to be the prioritization of the judicious use of material resources—a tangible good—over the more nebulous quality of personal freedom so that society can be better managed on the whole.

The problem to this is as follows. Material wealth is saved for some end. This means it is an instrumental good. On the other hand, freedom can be said to be an ultimate end to which society ought to aspire. How can we say without begging the question that an instrumental good should be the default metric of valuation in society when compared to a fundamental good, such as freedom? We cannot.

If on the other hand, my interlocuter wishes to compare what appears to be the philosophical idea of communitarianist sustainable living against the more libertarian position I am adopting above, he, as do I, need to show that one or the other of our respective views is the more compelling. There is no hard quantification of either proposition in the way that he/she wants. The question is not etheral values against dollars and cents, but one belief system against another.

Onto my original point then: a single body of epistemologically superior people poorly manage complexity in life. Politics has a way of elevating tensions and warping good purposes into ill. The power to deny the right of reproduction is a viscerally powerful control. We should not want to pay the tax its excercise entails.

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.