The Instigator
aircraftmechgirl
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+20
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 12,597 times Debate No: 17488
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (16)

 

aircraftmechgirl

Pro

I would like to debate the idea that welfare recipients should be subject to mandatory preventative birth control (i.e., contraception, not abortion) for the duration of time that they receive benefits. I will be arguing in favor of this position.

First round is acceptance, with second and third rounds set for rebuttals, and fourth round is closing arguments with no new points being added.

Thank you. :)
Illegalcombatant

Con

This is the first round, this is me accepting.
Debate Round No. 1
aircraftmechgirl

Pro


Thank you to my opponent for his acceptance. I look forward to debating this controversial topic.


For the purpose of this debate, I’d like to clarify that the word “welfare” will mean benefits or resources typically provided to the average non-recipient through wages earned, or through an employer. These could include healthcare benefits, cash payments, food assistance, or housing.


At the core of this particular debate is not the “right” or “wrong” of the welfare system, nor is this debate’s purpose to demonize or otherwise judge the personal moral and societal conduct of those Americans who receive welfare benefits. The very clear resolution here is the simple idea that an individual’s Constitutional right to reproduce at will is directly related to their ability to provide for the common good of any human beings they create, much like an Individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms is directly related to their willingness to exercise that right within the confines of responsible conduct pertaining to the said exercise. In addition, the reproductive rights of the individual must be weighed against the greater collective right of members who are already meeting their individual responsibilities to be free from the burden of taking on the care of those who choose to exercise their reproductive rights in an irresponsible manner.


While the Constitution holds individual rights to be sacred, the Supreme Court has held that our rights are only able to be exercised to the extent that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore, the irresponsible exercise of reproductive rights by welfare recipients (who demonstrate by their temporary or long-term dependence on government assistance an inability to be fully financially self-sufficient at that time) infringes upon the independent individual by forcing the support of said irresponsible behavior.


Americans by and large support this idea, as shown in a 2001 Zogby poll, which found that “62% would support legislating birth control with benefits, and agree with the implication that welfare recipients too often have children they are not financially able to support.” [1]


"We're asking welfare mothers to take responsibility for what they do," [Massachusetts welfare director Claire McIntire] said about a similar program to stop additional benefits for mothers who continue to have children on welfare. "We're not saying you're absolutely forbidden to have children. It's your choice, knowing if you have a child you will receive no additional money from the taxpayers." [3]


Example Case Studies:


People v. Johnson highlighted the issue of mandatory birth control in 1990. Darlene Johnson, a welfare-dependent mother, was convicted of abusing her four children. At the time, Johnson was pregnant with her fifth child. The case judge offered her a choice: she could serve a seven year prison term, or she could choose to serve one year and have the Norplant birth control implant for the duration of her probation. After initially agreeing to the Norplant, she later changed her mind and appealed the decision. Johnson violated her parole before her appellate hearing by using cocaine, and was sentenced to five years for the violation, thus negating the original decision involving Norplant. [2]


Shante Hodges, an 18-year-old with two children and a third on the way, said that being told not to have another child because she is on welfare is like “a stranger in the street telling me I shouldn't wear those sneakers… politicians tell them not to have a baby, but that doesn't mean they're not going to have it.” [3]


Hodges is a perfect example of why mandatory birth control is necessary. “[She] had been on birth control pills, she said, but quit taking them because her boyfriend was in jail. When he was released, she didn't have any contraceptives around the house. And that's when she became pregnant.” This particular example shows, absent any moral judgment, a basic lack of personal responsibility for one’s actions.


“Sylvia Missal, who runs a young parent program at Children's Hospital in Boston,” says that welfare mothers say they do not want more children but “they’re not able to organize themselves.” [3]


As a nation we would never mandate that citizens adopt children. Why then do we mandate that citizens who are independently supporting themselves also support—financially “adopting” through taxpayer-funded programs—those who refuse to exercise their rights responsibly?



[1] http://old.zogby.com...


[2] http://academic.udayton.edu...


[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...






Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for instigating an interesting debate.

Definitions

I am not looking to win on a cheap semantic point but I am confused on Pros definition here. Pro says "For the purpose of this debate, I’d like to clarify that the word “welfare” will mean benefits or resources typically provided to the average non-recipient through wages earned, or through an employer. These could include healthcare benefits, cash payments, food assistance, or housing."

Doesn't Pro mean resources or benefits provided to the recipient ? How can some one who is on welfare be a non recipient ?

After reading Pros argument I think what they have in mind is government paid/tax payer funded benefits to people, also known as welfare. I think its also clear what Pro has in their sights is the social safety net/welfare system of which distributes government payments.

I shall first present some objections to Pros argument, then move on to providing argument so to why we should NOT have mandatory birth control for welfare recipients.

Objection 1: Birth control and abortion

Clearly the goal of Pros policy is to not have people on welfare produce more babies. Yet Pro takes away the option of abortion. I find this restriction dubious at best and possibly hypo critical. I think Pro is trying to have it both ways here, wants to have no children produced on welfare, but doesn't want to anger the pro life/evangelical community.

Well I am not going to let that slide, if your willing to deny pro creation rights to welfare recipients then you don't get to take away their pro choice rights. You want no babies on welfare then you allow abortion as an option for people who have to fulfill the burden YOU put on them in the first place. It's the least you could do.

Under Pros policy we can have a mantra for welfare recipients.......abortion........safe......affordable.........and regular !!!

Objection 2: Is mandatory birth control really the best option ?

Take this example that Pro provides..."Hodges is a perfect example of why mandatory birth control is necessary. “[She] had been on birth control pills, she said, but quit taking them because her boyfriend was in jail. When he was released, she didn't have any contraceptives around the house. And that's when she became pregnant.”"

But notice that Hodges had been taking birth control pills, but later on didn't take them cause she didn't have any around the house. There is an access issue here to birth control. Before we take away reproductive rights, maybe we should make sure that every effort has been made at education of birth control and access to birth control before taking away such rights ?

Pro provides another example..."“Sylvia Missal, who runs a young parent program at Children's Hospital in Boston,” says that welfare mothers say they do not want more children but “they’re not able to organize themselves.”"

Again the first issue here is one of organisation, if this was solved you wouldn't need to resort to mandatory birth control.

I shall now provide argument that welfare recipients should NOT be subject to mandatory birth control.

The Religious Procreation Argument

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth." [1]

This is on the first page of the bible. Pros restriction is in direct contradiction of Gods command and implied command for humanity to pro create.......fruitfully. Does Pro really want to go put something in place that goes against the good book ? the holy word of God ? Well maybe Pro does, but I am sure all those evangelical Christians on which they profess there faith on the authority of the word of the Lord would be not so inclined.

Evolution and Diversity

Now maybe Pro doesn't adhere to the Christian God, or the Christian holy text. Maybe Pro doesn't even believe there is a designer, well I got you covered there too. Pros command for mandatory birth control is a big no no in the survival of a species. Under Pros proposition humans as a species will have less diversity, (read less genetically diverse). It won't just be less because a 2nd generation of welfare recipients won't exist, it has a knock on effect as those welfare recipients cause they don't exist won't have kids, and those kids who will now not exist won't exist and so on and so on.

The lesser the genetic diversity the lesser the chances for a species to survive as wikipedia explains..."Genetic diversity plays a very important role in survival and adaptability of a species because when a species’s environment changes, slight gene variations are necessary to produce changes in the organisms' anatomy that enables it to adapt and survive. A species that has a large degree of genetic diversity among its population will have more variations from which to choose the most fit alleles. Increase in genetic diversity is also essential for a species to evolve. Species that have very little genetic variation are at a great risk. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring often deal with similar problems to those of inbreeding. The vulnerability of a population to certain types of diseases can also increase with reduction in genetic diversity." [2]

Military Recruitment

Unfortunately people are wising up that being sent to war by rich white men isn't all the glory and fun its made out to be. As such the military is having more and more problems getting recruits, sign up get shipped to Iraq and maybe get your legs blown off is hardly an appealing sell and people aren't just buying the whole your serving your country and freedom and democracy by going over sea's to dispose of a tyrant which was once supported by your own country.........but I digress.

Now I ask you, who is going to fight in the military , and by fight I don't mean enlist I mean actually going over to what ever hell hole and actually being in harms way. Who will do this ? the George W Bushes of the world ? Would you vote for a presidential candidate who look less like Dubbya and more like Freddy Krueger who has being dis figured in military combat and also is in a wheel chair cause they had their legs blown off ? yeah good luck with that.

Clearly it is necessary for the elite not to be put in harms way which explains why it was necessary for George W Bush be kept safe during Vietnam conscription in the national guard..."During the 1968–1974 period, Presidents Johnson and Nixon decided against calling up National Guard units for service in Vietnam. As a result, National Guard service was widely portrayed as a way to avoid combat. The waiting list for the Guard at that time was extremely long, and there have been charges that young men from influential families were improperly moved to the top of the list." [3]

So who shall fight in wars ? easy, poor, desperate people that's who. But under Pros plan there will be less of these poor desperate people, and thus undermine the recruitment effort of the military.

Pros plan weakens our resolves and emboldens the enemy.

I look forward to Pros response.

Sources

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
aircraftmechgirl

Pro


Thank you to my opponent for his timely reply.



In the interests of clarity, I shall explain my definition further for the benefit of Con. My statement was: "For the purpose of this debate, I’d like to clarify that the word “welfare” will mean benefits or resources typically provided to the average non-recipient through wages earned, or through an employer. These could include healthcare benefits, cash payments, food assistance, or housing."



What this refers to is the fact that the average citizen (a non-recipient of welfare) receives those benefits from their wages, or their employer through a benefits package--wherea welfare recipients get those things from the government instead of a job. My apologies for not being clearer.



Rebuttal:



R1: Abortion


The resolution clearly states that the birth control methods presented for debate are preventative, not post-event. Abortion is not considered a method of preventative birth control simply because it does not prevent pregnancy, only birth. According to contracept.org, “Although most abortions are performed for birth control, they are by no means contraceptive.” [1] In addition, one women’s health site states that “Abortions are not meant to be used as a regular form of birth control; if you are having sex and do not want to get pregnant, use a reliable form of contraceptives.” [2] Even for those who are pro-abortion, the idea of using the procedure to substitute for responsible sexual behavior is generally ill-advised due to the psychological and emotional factors involved in the decision to abort


Con’s argument that we must allow abortion “as an option for people who have to fulfill the burden YOU put on them in the first place” mistakenly assumes that putting restrictions on reproduction for citizens who have demonstrated an inability to be self-sufficient places a “burden” on them at all. The burden is completely voluntary, much like drug testing for employment, or handgun ownership. People who wish to engage in certain activities accept that they will need to engage in those activities within the framework of responsible restrictions. Those who wish to drive a car must both insure that vehicle and adhere to driving laws, or they will have their driving privileges temporarily removed. It is a contract that citizens enter into: I want you to allow me to do X, and so I agree to do it within Y conditions. The same principle is in effect here: I want/need welfare benefits because I cannot support myself/my family, therefore I agree to not exacerbate the financial hardship in my home by adding to the number of mouths I have to feed. In reality, the "burden" in question is on the rest of society, who is expected to foot the bill for this irresponsible conduct.



R2: Best Option


Con argues that “there is an access issue here to birth control,” but ignores that the pill is not the only form of contraception. In fact, there are several types of contraception available at any drug store. To shrug off a pregnancy by saying “I just didn’t have any around the house when he got out of jail” is, as before stated, demonstrative of a lack of personal responsibility. The “issue of organization” is a nice way of saying that these people, and others like them, exhibit a lack of willingness to take responsibility for their actions.



R3: The Biblical Procreation Argument


Con is correct that Genesis commands Adam and Eve to procreate. This may be because they were the only two people on Earth at that time.


Since Con has decided to use the Bible as a credible source, I will also offer the following verses in rebuttal:


"Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith." –Ephesians 6:4


“If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” – II Thessalonians 3:10



R4: Evolution and Diversity


Con argues in A1 that my proposal is advocacy for abortion on demand as a method of post-event birth control. However, now he claims that welfare babies promote genetic diversity in the human species? In addition, Con’s diversity argument has racial implications, since “diversity” refers to minorities. I present the following cross-examination questions:


a) How can welfare babies promote genetic diversity if they’re being aborted under Con’s abortion-on-demand scenario?


b) How is Con so certain that preventing these pregnancies at all will result in “less diversity,” if he offers no statistics on the breakdown of welfare mothers by race?


c) Which situation is Con actually advocating for: aborting welfare babies, or not? R1 and R4 are contradictory.



R5: Military Recruitment


Con characterizes disabled American combat veterans as people who look “more like Freddy Krueger who has being dis figured in military combat and also is in a wheel chair cause they had their legs blown off [sic].” This is offensive, demeaning, and completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Con then degenerates his argument into a hodge-podge of anti-military and anti-Bush sentiment that not only does not advance his topic or argument whatsoever, but is factually incorrect (8700 National Guardsmen served in Vietnam, and 75,000 of them served in the First Gulf War, proving that enlisting in the Guard is not exactly the best way to avoid combat). [3]


His assertion that “under Pros [sic] plan there will be less of these poor desperate people [to fight in wars].” However, under Con’s plan as outlined in A1, those “poor, desperate people” would have been aborted anyway.


Con wraps up with another unrelated statement that mandatory birth control for welfare recipients “weakens our resolves and emboldens the enemy.” Again, this has literally nothing to do with the stated resolution of this debate, nor does it come close to rebutting it.



[1] http://www.contracept.org...


[2] http://www.epigee.org...


[3] http://www.ng.mil...




Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their quick reply.

Definitions

I think we have a better agreement on what welfare is, but the thing I find strange is why Pro leaves out other sources of income and benefits such as rental return income, income from trusts, income from shares etc. These forms of income and benefits are more popular among the better off among society, but in any case I doubt this will be an issue.

Objection 1: Birth control and abortion

Pro makes some comments like..."Which situation is Con actually advocating for: aborting welfare babies, or not ? " & "However, under Con’s plan as outlined in A1, those “poor, desperate people” would have been aborted anyway."

Pro mis-understands the argument here, I am not the one trying to achieve the goal of no babies born to a welfare recipient, you are. Its your argument that naturally flows to abortion in order to achieve its goals, not mine.

Pro says that under their policy that mandatory birth control is voluntary. I think this is a bit sneaky, as Pro points out if welfare recipient wants their welfare money then they have to do what we tell them. A person who is desperate will accept any conditions you put on them.

Although Pro correctly points out that their resolution only mentions preventative birth control, you have to remember what is the whole purpose of pros policy ? do they want mandatory birth control just for the lolz ? of course not, their whole goal is to not have the welfare recipient have a child while on welfare. As I pointed out before, its suspicious that Pro would rule out abortion since this would help in achevining the goal they are aiming for.

Ruling out abortion is not only not helpful to Pros goal, but also is harmful to Pros goal, as contraceptions are not 100% effective. Yes eventually one will slip through, and thus the only way to achieve Pros goal here is to have an abortion.

So the question to Pro is, why do you put a restriction on abortion ? seeing it will help you achieve the goal you are aiming for and its harmful to your goal to not allow it.

Objection 2: Is mandatory birth control really the best option ?

Pro now informs us is not really about organisation, but rather its about a moral failing on the part of the welfare recipient in there example as Pro says..."The “issue of organization” is a nice way of saying that these people, and others like them, exhibit a lack of willingness to take responsibility for their actions."

But remember Pro said before..."At the core of this particular debate is not the “right” or “wrong” of the welfare system, nor is this debate’s purpose to demonize or otherwise judge the personal moral and societal conduct of those Americans who receive welfare benefits. "

So Pro which one is it ? are you judging the personal morality of someone on the welfare system or aren't you ?

Objection 3: Appeal to the masses

Pro cites a poll as Pro says..."Americans by and large support this idea, as shown in a 2001 Zogby poll, which found that “62% would support legislating birth control with benefits, and agree with the implication that welfare recipients too often have children they are not financially able to support.”"

To anyway imply that something is true of false because the masses say so is a logical fallacy..."In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."" [1]

Objection 4: Pros example allows the welfare recipient to have more children

Pros argument says..."We're not saying you're absolutely forbidden to have children. It's your choice, knowing if you have a child you will receive no additional money from the taxpayers.""

But notice that this example doesn't in any way make the argument for mandatory birth control, it only argues that added increase to welfare payments should not happen in the event that the welfare recipient has another child.

The Religious Procreation Argument

Pro doesn't seem to refute or challenge the command of God, or at least the Christian God to be fruitful and multiply. Pro merely retorts with some bible verses of their own. Trouble is these verses don't in any way refute or undermine Gods command in Genesis for pro creation.

Even if you accept Pro implications with there cited bible verses at best you get some sort of euthanasia policy where food is denied to those who won't work and a moral damnation of some one who isn't looking after their own house hold. Once again none of this refutes the command of God for pro creation.

Pros policy is in direct violation of this command. The argument stands.

Evolution and Diversity

Previously I pointed out in the less genetic diversity that will result in the human species as a result of Pros policy and detrimental effects such as lesser probability of survival for a species.

Pro says..."In addition, Con’s diversity argument has racial implications, since “diversity” refers to minorities."

Some how even after two long paragraphs talking about genetics & the diversity of genetics in a species, some how Pro makes this about black people. I highly suggest Pro re-read the argument under evolution and diversity and get back to me.

Cause I am super helpful I will give Pro a snippets from this argument.....

"Under Pros proposition humans as a species will have less diversity, (read less genetically diverse)."

"Genetic diversity plays a very important role in survival and adaptability of a species because when a species’s environment changes, "

"A species that has a large degree of genetic diversity among its population will have more variations from which to choose the most fit"

Pros obsession with black people aside, Pro presents no challenge to the evolutionary argument. As such the argument stands.

Military Recruitment

Pro says..."Con characterizes disabled American combat veterans as people who look “more like Freddy Krueger who has being dis figured in military combat and also is in a wheel chair cause they had their legs blown off"

I reject this characterization of my argument as this, I clearly provided argument that showed how the Geroge W Bushes of the world probably are not going to be signing up to fight in the military and or be getting out of actual combat. My argument that something bad happening to George W bush hurts his presidential destiny and saying that means I am characterizing disabled combat veterans as Freddy Kruger is unwarranted and unjustified.

Now admittedly I did get a bid side track here, but it was to make a point which I did eventually get to, the point being desperate poor people are a good source of military fodder. I pointed out the reduction in this pool of potential candidates that will result if Pros policy is implemented. Pro had no argument against this, as such the argument stands.

The Economic Argument

One of the basics of economics is supply and demand. The more workers or potential workers there are, the more supply there is, and as such all things being equal the cost of labour will be less. Under Pros policy with less workers and less potential works wage costs will be higher than they would of been other wise. There is also the issue of workers then having more bargaining power as there will be less labour to go around, big business will not be happy.

Also a more general consequence is the higher wage costs will lead to higher inflation than would of other wise been.

This problem is made worse by the USA current war effort and future wars (yes I said future wars, we all know its going to happen, stop kidding your self). The reason it is made worse is because the USA war machines needs man power, and thus sucks man power away from other sectors of the economy.

I look forward to Pros reply.


Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
aircraftmechgirl

Pro

Thank you to Con for his reply. I shall now answer each of his objections.

O1: Abortion

Con restates his position that we must consider abortion as a valid birth control option. However, I gave two reputable (with one being pro-choice) sources stating that abortion is not a method of birth control. In addition, the resolution that I have BOP over is preventative birth control, not post-conception abortion. The point here is to stop conception, period, not come along later and abort the fetus. As for the ones that will "slip through," Con correctly states that this could theoretically happen in rare cases. Unfortunately, to disregard an entire premise based on a less-than-1% chance of failure (which is what Norplant and other long-term contraception options have), is like saying we should abolish the entire prison system because once in a great while, an innocent man goes to jail. Obviously we would not do this. We would instead deal with that particular case. If birth control is administered by a doctor and still fails, then that particular baby would go on to be born and the mother would continue to receive benefits. No system is foolproof, but contraceptives administered by a health care provider would go a long way toward ensuring that errors are highly minimal.

My opponent claims that mandatory birth control is "sneaky" because people would be forced to "do what we tell them" if they want their money. Anyone who is employed is already quite familiar with this premise, because that's what employment is: Doing what someone tells you, so you can have money. Plenty of people are not happy with facets of their employment, but they perform the duties because that's what is required--and without that paycheck they would be desperate. There's nothing sneaky about that.

O2: Best Option/Moral Judgments

"Lack of willingness to take responsibility for their actions" in no way denotes a moral judgment. Instead, it is a common sense argument. Adults take responsibility for themselves and their families. A moral judgment would include commentary on the fact that both case examples involve children by multiple fathers, most of whom are in and out of jail. It would also pronounce a personal opinion on the drug use of the mothers. In actuality, who these women (or men) sleep with is no one's concern; nor is it our business how often they are in jail. The only relevant point here is their demonstrated inability to financially provide for themselves. Since both of my sources--one of them being a welfare recipient--admit that they're not going to stop having children, the burden falls on taxpayers to subsidize their conduct. Does Con believe that his taxes should go to pay for the medical bills and daily sustenance for someone who has lung cancer because they chose to smoke? "Octomom" is a classic example as well. She was on welfare before she had her 8 babies. Do you really believe it's our job to subsidize someone who wanted to conceive babies when she already was not able to provide for the babies she had? The PRO argument is not that she shouldn't be allowed to have children at all. The argument is that she shouldn't be allowed to have babies she cannot financially provide for.

All of our liberties come with responsibilities and guidelines that we must adhere to. Yes, we have freedom of speech--within reason. Yes, we have freedom of assembly--as long as its peaceable. Yes, you can have as many babies as you want--as long as you can provide for them.

O3: Appeal to the Masses

Con mischaracterizes my argument here. All I did was state that 62% of citizens would support a mandatory birth control law. The logical fallacy does not exist because we are talking about proposing a law in a democratic republic. Therefore, the will of the people has merit. I am not stating that my proposal is "true" because the masses say it is. I'm stating that the majority of the people, from a legal standpoint, support the law being passed.

O4: Having More Children

Con uses a quote by the Massachusetts welfare director out of context to insinuate that my argument allows welfare mothers to have more children. If we read the entire context, we see that she was talking "about a similar program to stop additional benefits for mothers who continue to have children on welfare." I'm well aware that it wasn't about mandatory birth control. It was showing that similar programs are already underway because state governments are beginning to see that there is a problem. If anything, that's a perfect solution to the ones that "slip through" the net, as Con puts it.

O5: Religious Procreation

This entire segment is pointless, as Con is on record in multiple debates arguing against the existence of God, generally seen as the Divine Author of the Bible. This means that not even Con agrees with Biblical theology, and so his use of it to bolster his argument is hard to understand. That being said, it again becomes a matter of context. There are only 11 instances of God telling someone to "be fruitful and multiply," and none of them are generalized admonitions to mankind. Three of those are to Adam and Eve, the only two people on the earth at that time. Two were to Noah, who with his family, were the only survivors of the Great Flood. One was in regard to Ishmael, the father of the Arabic nations, as God explained that he would make the Arabs a mighty people. Two were to Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. One was to the people of Israel as part of their covenant through Moses. The last two are prophecies by Ezekiel and Isaiah, explaining to the Jews that if they would stop worshipping idols, God would bless them. At no time is there a command for all mankind to irresponsibly conceive over and over with no thought to consequences.

O6: Diversity

Con makes an incredible statement here in regard to my point on genetic diversity when he says that "Some how even after two long paragraphs talking about genetics & the diversity of genetics in a species, some how Pro makes this about black people."

Not only did I not ever mention "black people," but Con straw mans here by pretending that I did, even claiming I'm obsessed with them. In addition, his own definition of "minorities" as being only referring to "black people" is flawed at its base. The lack of logic or even basic demographic understanding in this segment is surpassed only by his sarcasm.

O7: Military Recruitment

This segment is also lacking, as he claims he "clearly provided argument that showed how the Geroge W Bushes of the world probably are not going to be signing up to fight in the military and or be getting out of actual combat." He somehow ties his completely unrelated point in with the topic at hand by saying "desperate poor people are a good source of military fodder." He is then advocating that we pay welfare to families so they may join the military for the express purpose of being used in war. I submit that "cultivating" a welfare-raised segment of the population for use as "fodder" is unreasonable to the point of incredulity, and far less humane than simply not creating this segment at all.

O8: Economics

Lastly, Con revisits his war premise by claiming that "USA war machines needs [sic] man power, and thus [welfare] sucks man power away from other sectors of the economy." Does Con have any sources to support this idea?

Conclusion

Con's arguments are not only all over the board, but they are bolstered by less than credible sources (Wikipedia). He uses not only straw man arguments, but provides no statistical data to back up his claims that the U.S. "war machines" somehow reduce manpower in other facets of the economy, which is literally not related at all to the topic at hand.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Although I raised some objections there is only one I really want to focus on going into this last round.

Objection 1: Birth control and abortion

Previously I argued that abortion would help in achieving Pros aims, as well as NOT allowing abortion is detrimental to Pros goal of not having welfare recipients having a baby while on welfare. Pro doesn't seem to challenge that Pros policy would be more effective with abortion as an option.

Pro distorts their own source as Pro says..." I gave two reputable (with one being pro-choice) sources stating that abortion is not a method of birth control." but Pro sources says..." In addition, one women's health site states that "Abortions are not meant to be used as a regular form of birth control; if you are having sex and do not want to get pregnant, use a reliable form of contraceptives.""

This source merely makes the point that abortion shouldn't be the primary form of birth control, my objection already made this assumption. I am not making the objection based that abortion should be the primary form of birth control in Pros policy.

So once again, what reason did Pro gives us that although abortion will help in achieving their policy goals never the less Pro prohibits abortion in their policy ? Pro at best tries to hide behind their own resolution. This doesn't address the question nor does it refute the points I have continually made about abortion being helpful in what Pro wishes to achieve here.

I think I have made the discrepancy quite clear here, and for the Pro life advocate this position at the very least is quite worrisome if not untenable.

Until this discrepancy is sorted out, I think this gives a good reason not to adopt Pros policy concerning welfare recipients and mandatory birth control.

The Religious Procreation Argument

Pro straight of the bat decides to talk about me personally, rather than engage the argument, as Pro says..."This entire segment is pointless, as Con is on record in multiple debates arguing against the existence of God, generally seen as the Divine Author of the Bible. This means that not even Con agrees with Biblical theology,"

Trouble is you can't really tell what my views are from my past debates as I just love playing devils advocate. But this is entirely irrelevant and a red herring, as I could be the reincarnation of Adolf Hiter currently being the leader of the scientolgists and the argument still stands. Its not the person that Pro has to refute but the argument.

Pro says..."At no time is there a command for all mankind to irresponsibly conceive over and over with no thought to consequences."

This is making the bible say something that it doesn't say. Pro doesn't get to make up by them self what exemptions there are and say oh but this is what God really meant. Pro doesn't get to decided ok, but that is responsible and in line with genesis but that isn't.

Pros policy (absent Pro as the judicator of what counts as an acceptable exemption to Gods command and what doesn't) is still in violation of the command in genesis. The argument from religion, more specifically the argument from the Christian bible of the Christian God giving the command to be "fruitful and multiply" still stands.

Evolution and Diversity

Pro says...""Some how even after two long paragraphs talking about genetics & the diversity of genetics in a species, some how Pro makes this about black people.""

Pro is right, Pro only mentioned "minorities", that was a mistake on my part. Maybe Pro meant Mexicans, Asians or Blacks I dunno.

Maybe Pro is confused because Pro thinks that my reference to diversity is in a racial context, it isn't. I have clearly stated it in a genetic context.

As I said before..."Under Pros proposition humans as a species will have less diversity, (read less genetically diverse). It won't just be less because a 2nd generation of welfare recipients won't exist, it has a knock on effect as those welfare recipients cause they don't exist won't have kids, and those kids who will now not exist won't exist and so on and so on."

Genetic diversity will be less under Pros mandatory birth control plan that it would of otherwise being, thus the survivability of the human species is lessened, as I cited before..."Genetic diversity plays a very important role in survival and adaptability of a species because when a species's environment changes, slight gene variations are necessary to produce changes in the organisms' anatomy that enables it to adapt and survive. "

This gives us a good reason to reject mandatory birth control for welfare recipients.

Military Recruitment & The Economic Argument

Pro says..."He is then advocating that we pay welfare to families so they may join the military for the express purpose of being used in war."

This is a mis characterisation of my argument, I clearly made the argument potential recruitment's can be found from poor desperate people, and that welfare families are a good sources of such people. Its hardly the case that all welfare families will join the military.

Pro says..."I submit that "cultivating" a welfare-raised segment of the population for use as "fodder" is unreasonable to the point of incredulity, and far less humane than simply not creating this segment at all."

Again, I only argue that the welfare family provide a sources from which to recruit, I am not arguing that they should some how be "cultivated". The fact that their will be desperate poor people is enough for the military to get their hands on them.

Pro says..."Lastly, Con revisits his war premise by claiming that "USA war machines needs [sic] man power, and thus [welfare] sucks man power away from other sectors of the economy." Does Con have any sources to support this idea?"

No what I said was..."This problem is made worse by the USA current war effort and future wars (yes I said future wars, we all know its going to happen, stop kidding your self). The reason it is made worse is because the USA war machines needs man power, and thus sucks man power away from other sectors of the economy."

Pro asking for statistics hardly refutes the premise that the military needs man power. Neither does it refute the premise that as the military takes more and more man power from other sectors of the economy you need more man power to fill in the gaps. Where does Pro think the resources for the military come from ? People and bomb making factories just don't fall from the sky.

Pro doesn't seem to challenge my inflation argument, or the increase in labour bargaining power from having less supply of workers and potential workers to the determinant of big business.

Closing Remarks.

I hope you found this debate as fun as I did, and credit to Pro for instigating a more interesting debate topic. I showed that there is a problem in Pros argument as they restrict abortion, a restriction that was never justified and for at least the Pro life advocate or those sympathetic to Pro life positions should not agree with the resolution, until the very least this issue is resolved.

I also provided argument that we should NOT have mandatory birth control for welfare recipients based on a religious pro creation argument, an evolutionary and genetic diversity argument and a military economic argument. Even if you don't agree with all the arguments, even if one of the arguments is a good one, its enough to negate the resolution.

I ask the vote go to the Con.

I thank Pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
That is ridiculous. And how do you vote only on the sources with no mention of the debate itself? Did he even read it?
Posted by aircraftmechgirl 6 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
Whitewolf thinks .edu, .mil, and the Washington Post are better sources than wikipedia? God help us all. Nice vote.
Posted by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
Peachykehn, how are you commenting when your account has been deactivated?
Posted by Peachykehn 6 years ago
Peachykehn
I do support this argument. Many people are misunderstanding the intent of the instigator's argument, however. Because people on welfare have proved to not be responsible enough to care for themselves, they are also not responsible enough to care for children--of course, there are some exceptions to this.

These women are not being denied their rights to give birth to children--in fact, they shouldn't even be forced or monitored to use birth control. The government should let the woman decide--if she wishes to have a child, then she is allowed to; only her welfare money will be taken away after a specified amount of time. She will be forced to pay for her actions, just as any other person who is not on welfare does.

I would be in favor of even a less-extreme position where any extra children birthed while taking welfare would be ignored (ie: she will have only enough welfare money to support herself and any children she had before taking welfare).

As for abortion--this is more of a personal matter. It is not a means of contraception--though I think if the mother wishes it, she may avoid losing her welfare money by aborting the pregnancy. I am personally against the idea, though I do also believe that the decision to abort children is up to the parents.

As for the children who are born this way--it is the guilt and shame of the parent if they fail to raise the child properly. It is not the responsibility of the government to save parents from the burden of their children because they are unable to change. Most parents will change, however, if they suddenly find that their child is depending on them, and not the government. True, the fate of the child is not in his or her control--but is it not that way for every child?

The intention of welfare is to get people on their feet and working, rather than leaving them in the streets. Such mothers would find much more motivation to get back on their feet if the fate of their child was solely in their hands.
Posted by Thrasymachus 6 years ago
Thrasymachus
Interesting stuff. A random question

(@aircraftmechgirl)

I presume you will say that if you're on welfare, and get pregnant whilst taking contraception, the state is not going to penalize you for getting 'unlucky'. In contrast, if you refuse contraception, you won't get welfare, and if you conceive any children, you're on your own. Is this not remarkably iniquitous to the children? The children of no-welfare are likely to suffer extraordinary disadvantages for factors wholly outside their control. Can your policy deal with this complaint?
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 6 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
It's always funny when some "small-govt" conservative offers a horribly totalitarian position. Interesting debate though.
Posted by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
If welfare is linked to birth control, I would oppose welfare.

How about educating couples but letting them decide if and when they want to have children!
Posted by seraine 6 years ago
seraine
Wouldn't it be better to take any welfare recipients off welfare if they had a child? Just sayin...
Posted by KristophKP 6 years ago
KristophKP
Excellent debate topic. Kudos for choosing it.
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
Lmao Freedo, so true...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by msaka33 4 years ago
msaka33
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Clever tactics in debating
Vote Placed by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sources were more reliable but Con's arguments effectively defeated the resolution.
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's arguments were more succinct, direct, professional and persuasive. I thought CON had some interesting points but used a lot of non-sequiturs and strawmen throughout the debate instead of arguing the valid points to detract from the debate at hand.
Vote Placed by WhiteWolf 6 years ago
WhiteWolf
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt like Illegalcombatant had more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by wierdman 6 years ago
wierdman
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Contentions were argued very well on both sides but none of Cons contentions negate the resolution. The resolution states that people should be subject to birth control not abortion. The religious argument is irrelevant because people who do not believe in birth control would not accept welfare and also "because the bible says so" is not a valid argument, the diversity argument does not over rule the economic burden on taxpayers, and the military argument had no valid logical connection.
Vote Placed by tudaloo 6 years ago
tudaloo
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to say IIllegalcombatant won the majority of my vote.
Vote Placed by ohnoyoulost 6 years ago
ohnoyoulost
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Very interesting. Pro gives much more reasoning on her side, Con tried to counter and did well but simply could not overcome Pro's impacts
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro convinced me simply by stating the obvious. The constitution clearly states that a person's rights end when they infinge on another. Well, when a half witted, irresponsible, welfare recipient draws money from my income, that is exactly what is happening. Resolution affirmed.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
aircraftmechgirlIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's sources were mostly wiki's but Con's arguments were far more convincing to me than Pro's.