Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control

DefinitionsI think we have a better agreement on what welfare is, but the thing I find strange is why Pro leaves out other sources of income and benefits such as rental return income, income from trusts, income from shares etc. These forms of income and benefits are more popular among the better off among society, but in any case I doubt this will be an issue. Objection 1: Birth control and abortionPro makes some comments like. .. "Which situation is Con actually advocating for: aborting welfare babies, or not ? " & "However, under Con’s plan as outlined in A1, those “poor, desperate people” would have been aborted anyway. "Pro mis-understands the argument here, I am not the one trying to achieve the goal of no babies born to a welfare recipient, you are. Its your argument that naturally flows to abortion in order to achieve its goals, not mine. Pro says that under their policy that mandatory birth control is voluntary. I think this is a bit sneaky, as Pro points out if welfare recipient wants their welfare money then they have to do what we tell them. A person who is desperate will accept any conditions you put on them. Although Pro correctly points out that their resolution only mentions preventative birth control, you have to remember what is the whole purpose of pros policy ? do they want mandatory birth control just for the lolz ? of course not, their whole goal is to not have the welfare recipient have a child while on welfare. As I pointed out before, its suspicious that Pro would rule out abortion since this would help in achevining the goal they are aiming for. Ruling out abortion is not only not helpful to Pros goal, but also is harmful to Pros goal, as contraceptions are not 100% effective. Yes eventually one will slip through, and thus the only way to achieve Pros goal here is to have an abortion. So the question to Pro is, why do you put a restriction on abortion ? seeing it will help you achieve the goal you are aiming for and its harmful to your goal to not allow it. Objection 2: Is mandatory birth control really the best option ? Pro now informs us is not really about organisation, but rather its about a moral failing on the part of the welfare recipient in there example as Pro says. .. "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. "But remember Pro said before. .. "At the core of this particular debate is not the “right” or “wrong” of the welfare system, nor is this debate’s purpose to demonize or otherwise judge the personal moral and societal conduct of those Americans who receive welfare benefits. "So Pro which one is it ? are you judging the personal morality of someone on the welfare system or aren't you ? Objection 3: Appeal to the massesPro cites a poll as Pro says. .. "Americans by and large support this idea, as shown in a 2001 Zogby poll, which found that “62% would support legislating birth control with benefits, and agree with the implication that welfare recipients too often have children they are not financially able to support. ”"To anyway imply that something is true of false because the masses say so is a logical fallacy. .. "In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so. "" [1]Objection 4: Pros example allows the welfare recipient to have more childrenPros argument says. .. "We're not saying you're absolutely forbidden to have children. It's your choice, knowing if you have a child you will receive no additional money from the taxpayers. ""But notice that this example doesn't in any way make the argument for mandatory birth control, it only argues that added increase to welfare payments should not happen in the event that the welfare recipient has another child. The Religious Procreation ArgumentPro doesn't seem to refute or challenge the command of God, or at least the Christian God to be fruitful and multiply. Pro merely retorts with some bible verses of their own. Trouble is these verses don't in any way refute or undermine Gods command in Genesis for pro creation. Even if you accept Pro implications with there cited bible verses at best you get some sort of euthanasia policy where food is denied to those who won't work and a moral damnation of some one who isn't looking after their own house hold. Once again none of this refutes the command of God for pro creation. Pros policy is in direct violation of this command. The argument stands. Evolution and Diversity Previously I pointed out in the less genetic diversity that will result in the human species as a result of Pros policy and detrimental effects such as lesser probability of survival for a species. Pro says. .. "In addition, Con’s diversity argument has racial implications, since “diversity” refers to minorities. "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. I highly suggest Pro re-read the argument under evolution and diversity and get back to me. Cause I am super helpful I will give Pro a snippets from this argument. .. .. "Under Pros proposition humans as a species will have less diversity, (read less genetically diverse). ""Genetic diversity plays a very important role in survival and adaptability of a species because when a species’s environment changes, ""A species that has a large degree of genetic diversity among its population will have more variations from which to choose the most fit"Pros obsession with black people aside, Pro presents no challenge to the evolutionary argument. As such the argument stands. Military RecruitmentPro says. .. "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"I reject this characterization of my argument as this, I clearly provided argument that showed how the Geroge W Bushes of the world probably are not going to be signing up to fight in the military and or be getting out of actual combat. My argument that something bad happening to George W bush hurts his presidential destiny and saying that means I am characterizing disabled combat veterans as Freddy Kruger is unwarranted and unjustified. Now admittedly I did get a bid side track here, but it was to make a point which I did eventually get to, the point being desperate poor people are a good source of military fodder. I pointed out the reduction in this pool of potential candidates that will result if Pros policy is implemented. Pro had no argument against this, as such the argument stands. The Economic ArgumentOne of the basics of economics is supply and demand. The more workers or potential workers there are, the more supply there is, and as such all things being equal the cost of labour will be less. Under Pros policy with less workers and less potential works wage costs will be higher than they would of been other wise. There is also the issue of workers then having more bargaining power as there will be less labour to go around, big business will not be happy. Also a more general consequence is the higher wage costs will lead to higher inflation than would of other wise been. 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. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...