Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control

DefinitionsI 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 abortionClearly 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 RecruitmentUnfortunately 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...