Chemical sterilization for non-custodial parents of 2 or more children that don't pay child support

Thanks acbriggs for the topic. ==Definitions== One definition needs to be clarified for the sake of this debate. Chemical sterilization (CS) refers to the permanent sterilization of an individual achieved by creating scarring in the vas deferens or fallopian tubes through chemical means. [1] In contrast, chemical castration (CC) is a completely different term; this term is actually a misnomer. [2] CC refers to regularly administered drugs that prevent a male from being aroused – the effect wears off when the drug treatments cease. ==Rebuttal== Because of my case strategy, I only need to answer one of my opponent's arguments here: that CS will result in less unprotected sex. In fact, I turn this argument. CS would result in more unsafe sex because females now know that they are guaranteed child support, so they will be more willing to risk pregnancy. ==My case== I agree with my opponent's goal of getting everyone to pay child support. I will argue, however, that chemical sterilization is the wrong punishment to achieve this goal. C1) 8th Amendment The Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." Federal court precedent is that forced sterilization is considered cruel and/or unusual. Harry Hamilton Laughlin in his book "Eugenical sterilization in the United States" writes, "The decision of the United States District Court in the Nevada case seems to indicate that as a rule the American states will not tolerate punitive sterilization." [3] There is a double bind here – either my opponent's new law will be overturned by the court system, rendering it completely ineffective OR my opponent's law will be allowed to violate the 8th Amendment, thus rendering the 8th Amendment ineffectual. If the 8th Amendment can be violated, people have no protections against cruel and unusual punishments, like being skinned alive. C2) More effective enforcement There are many better ways to enforce child support payments than CS. a. States have found success by mandating that child support be automatically deducted from a non-custodial parent's paycheck. [4] b. Other places have had success confiscating a non-custodial parent's property, like his car, if he fails to pay child support. [5] The profits from the sale of said property could be used to pay the owed child support. c. Parents can currently be jailed (for contempt of court) for failing to pay child support. [6] d. States also revoke the driving privileges of non-custodial parents who fail to pay child support. "According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, every state has some version of a law that revokes licenses of parents who fail to pay child support." [7] All of the above methods should be sufficient to ensure that non-custodial parents pay child support. We do not need to resort to sterilization as punishment. C3) More humane sterilization I do not advocate sterilization as a punishment, but if my opponent were to somehow win that this punishment is desirable, there are more humane methods of sterilization other than chemical. Both CC and surgical sterilization would be preferable to CS because both are reversible. If a "deadbeat parent" reforms his ways and makes consistent child support payments over a period of years, the State should allow this individual to reverse the sterilization process. Proof: my sources under definitions prove that CC is reversible whereas CS is not. Surgical vasectomies are also reversible. [8] Tube tying procedures can also be reversed, if the non-custodial parent is female. [9] Because there are more humane and legal ways to achieve the same result that the pro advocates, I urge a Con ballot. [1] http://www.fhi.org... [2] http://findarticles.com... [3] http://books.google.com... [4] http://news.sc... [5] http://www.nationalpost.com... [6] http://divorce.clementlaw.com... [7] http://divorce.clementlaw.com... [8] http://www.vasectomyinfo.com... [9] http://infertility.lifetips.com...