Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control

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...