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

I understand this can be a very emotional subject on many levels for many people. I recognize, applaud, and appreciate my opponents ability to remain factual and not engage in personal attacks. I have found it difficult at times to keep from sticking my tongue out as I am quite adamant about this particular subject. So, once again, thank you for keeping it civil. C1 response: I do not agree the 8th amendment is germaine to this debate for reasons mentioned in my previous post. In parentis loco and parens patriae supercede the 8th amendment rights and civil liberties of the parents, simply because the inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" [1]bestowed upon the existing child(ren) at birth are always of paramount importance for society as a whole, enforceable by our government (not the government of Namibia). Existing children can not have sustainable life without the financial support of the two individuals that consciously (and consensually) brought them into this world. They can not appreciate liberty, because liberty must be attained in our existing society, and in order to attain it, they would have to be nurtured emotionally AND financially until such age as they could see to their own needs. They also would be less able to pursue happiness due to fact that their existence would be in jeopardy on a daily basis. The amendment that is germaine and supports my premise is the 14th amendment[2], which promises to ALL citizens (maybe, might-be, someday children are not citizens) equal protection under the law. It has been demonstrated countless times that strict scrutiny[3] favors the liberties and rights of the 'helpless' (i. e. children) above those of adults capable of fighting for themselves. One excellent example is that of child pornography. We, as Americans, value nothing as profoundly as our freedom to be left alone, and the freedom to do as we see fit within the confines of our own homes. In direct opposition to our right to privacy, a person in their own home viewing material with children in sexually exploitative posses, are guilty of a crime and are punished accordingly. The rights of the child here have outweighed the liberties of the adult. C2 response: a. Perpetual unemployment is not hard times, it is a lifestyle choice. Just because someone chooses to perpetually be unemployed does not absolve them of their obligations and/or responsibilities, ESPECIALLY where children are concerned. Remove this from my opponents argument. b. . http://www.pacode.com.... Remove this from my opponents argument c. The non-custodial parent is not actually being jailed for non-payment. The jail time is for contempt of court[4] which carries the same punishment if you are 'failure to appear' or 'failure to pay'. As this was not designed as a method of ensuring payment exclusively, and carries no more time/cost than any other contempt of court, remove it from my opponents argument. d. The State Highway Patrol in Missouri alone hands out an estimated 50 tickets per day to unlicensed drivers[5]. That is over 18000 per year. This number does not take into account the volume of tickets local law enforcement officers issue to unlicensed drivers. Statistically speaking, a percentage of these drivers fall below the poverty line, therefore would not be considered 'wealthy' at all. Remove this from my opponents argument. I take great offense to you stating that driving on a revoked license is more serious a crime than not providing for a child. If the United States government were of the same mind, under-privileged persons would receive 'gas stamps' for their car instead of food stamps for their kid. C3) My opponents argument for CC and/or SS would be just as forced in its administration as my CS and therefore subject to his definition of cruel and unusual punishment. Let us also not forget that CC negatively affects a males sex drive[6], unlike SS or CS, which would in fact be MORE degrading (and so would meet the first requirement for cruel and unusual more readily). To put it very commonly (and perhaps a bit off color), it is better to be shooting blanks and not have to tell anyone, than it would be to have to explain why you can't raise the gun. My opponents argument for CC as a more humane approach should be discounted, leaving the other arguments for CC a moot point. Remove this from my opponents argument. The existing child would benefit when/if the non-custodial parent reforms his/her ways regardless of whether he/she had undergone CS. If it is in the heart, mind, and morals of the non-custodial parent to one day begin/resume paying his/her child support, he/she will do it for the benefit of the child, regardless of past punishments. Remove this from my opponents argument. I implore you to vote pro to the chemical sterilization of those who, through their own actions, have chosen it for their punishment. I also urge you to consider the benefits to the existing children, and remember the only 'force' my opponent is arguing for, is the forced deprivation and demoralization of future children unfortunate enough to be created by those, who through their previous actions, have proved to be irresponsible and neglectful. [1]. http://www.ushistory.org... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [4]. http://www.child-support-laws-state-by-state.com... [5]. http://www.abc17news.com... [6]. http://en.wikipedia.org...