The Instigator
rjohn180
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should welfare place a max child reqirement for people receiving benefits?

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: 10/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 81772
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

rjohn180

Pro

I believe that there should be a max child requirement in place for people already on welfare who continue to have children. I have lived in many urban areas and seen the same problem in every one. A woman walks in using a snap card to pay for groceries, gets cash out of the ATM with the same card and buys cigarettes with it. Behind her the woman has 3 children and is pregnant with another. At what point do we decide enough is enough? When will the government take their responsibility to the taxpayer seriously. I propose a 2 child maximum for people on welfare to receive benefits. If they exceed that, no additional funds will be given. Opponents may say that people have a right to reproduce and that is true, but taxpayers have the right to say if you choose to have a child you can't afford we aren't going to pay for it.
V5RED

Con

There are a large number of problems with a simple "2 child maximum for people on welfare to receive benefits" like Pro has suggested.

Does Pro suggest that the extra children starve? Does Pro think that the parents' children should be taken away from them for being poor? Which children should be taken? Which ones get to stay with their parents? Who will pay for the care of these children? Has Pro considered that the children will still require care whether that care is from their birth parents or from a government agency?

There are families that currently have over 2 children and are not receiving welfare benefits. Pro's suggestion would mean that if the parents were to lose their jobs, they would not be given sufficient assistance for all of their children as they sought new employment. Does Pro think that it is ethical to break up families because the parents lost their jobs?

Whether the children stay with their parents or are taken into government care, they will still cost the taxpayers money.

As long as the children are being treated well, it seems that the best use of the money is to provide it to the parents so they can continue to raise their children. If it can be shown that most of the money earmarked for the children is being spend on things like beer and cigarettes and the children are being deprived, then you might have an argument for Child Protective Services taking the children away. That would be an entirely different system from the one Pro proposed.
Debate Round No. 1
rjohn180

Pro

rjohn180 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
rjohn180

Pro

rjohn180 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
rjohn180

Pro

rjohn180 forfeited this round.
V5RED

Con

V5RED forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.