Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control

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 abortionPreviously 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 ArgumentPro 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 ArgumentPro 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.