Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control

Thank you to Con for his reply. I shall now answer each of his objections.O1: AbortionCon restates his position that we must consider abortion as a valid birth control option. However, I gave two reputable (with one being pro-choice) sources stating that abortion is not a method of birth control. In addition, the resolution that I have BOP over is preventative birth control, not post-conception abortion. The point here is to stop conception, period, not come along later and abort the fetus. As for the ones that will "slip through," Con correctly states that this could theoretically happen in rare cases. Unfortunately, to disregard an entire premise based on a less-than-1% chance of failure (which is what Norplant and other long-term contraception options have), is like saying we should abolish the entire prison system because once in a great while, an innocent man goes to jail. Obviously we would not do this. We would instead deal with that particular case. If birth control is administered by a doctor and still fails, then that particular baby would go on to be born and the mother would continue to receive benefits. No system is foolproof, but contraceptives administered by a health care provider would go a long way toward ensuring that errors are highly minimal.My opponent claims that mandatory birth control is "sneaky" because people would be forced to "do what we tell them" if they want their money. Anyone who is employed is already quite familiar with this premise, because that's what employment is: Doing what someone tells you, so you can have money. Plenty of people are not happy with facets of their employment, but they perform the duties because that's what is required--and without that paycheck they would be desperate. There's nothing sneaky about that. O2: Best Option/Moral Judgments"Lack of willingness to take responsibility for their actions" in no way denotes a moral judgment. Instead, it is a common sense argument. Adults take responsibility for themselves and their families. A moral judgment would include commentary on the fact that both case examples involve children by multiple fathers, most of whom are in and out of jail. It would also pronounce a personal opinion on the drug use of the mothers. In actuality, who these women (or men) sleep with is no one's concern; nor is it our business how often they are in jail. The only relevant point here is their demonstrated inability to financially provide for themselves. Since both of my sources--one of them being a welfare recipient--admit that they're not going to stop having children, the burden falls on taxpayers to subsidize their conduct. Does Con believe that his taxes should go to pay for the medical bills and daily sustenance for someone who has lung cancer because they chose to smoke? "Octomom" is a classic example as well. She was on welfare before she had her 8 babies. Do you really believe it's our job to subsidize someone who wanted to conceive babies when she already was not able to provide for the babies she had? The PRO argument is not that she shouldn't be allowed to have children at all. The argument is that she shouldn't be allowed to have babies she cannot financially provide for.All of our liberties come with responsibilities and guidelines that we must adhere to. Yes, we have freedom of speech--within reason. Yes, we have freedom of assembly--as long as its peaceable. Yes, you can have as many babies as you want--as long as you can provide for them. O3: Appeal to the MassesCon mischaracterizes my argument here. All I did was state that 62% of citizens would support a mandatory birth control law. The logical fallacy does not exist because we are talking about proposing a law in a democratic republic. Therefore, the will of the people has merit. I am not stating that my proposal is "true" because the masses say it is. I'm stating that the majority of the people, from a legal standpoint, support the law being passed. O4: Having More Children Con uses a quote by the Massachusetts welfare director out of context to insinuate that my argument allows welfare mothers to have more children. If we read the entire context, we see that she was talking "about a similar program to stop additional benefits for mothers who continue to have children on welfare." I'm well aware that it wasn't about mandatory birth control. It was showing that similar programs are already underway because state governments are beginning to see that there is a problem. If anything, that's a perfect solution to the ones that "slip through" the net, as Con puts it.O5: Religious ProcreationThis entire segment is pointless, as Con is on record in multiple debates arguing against the existence of God, generally seen as the Divine Author of the Bible. This means that not even Con agrees with Biblical theology, and so his use of it to bolster his argument is hard to understand. That being said, it again becomes a matter of context. There are only 11 instances of God telling someone to "be fruitful and multiply," and none of them are generalized admonitions to mankind. Three of those are to Adam and Eve, the only two people on the earth at that time. Two were to Noah, who with his family, were the only survivors of the Great Flood. One was in regard to Ishmael, the father of the Arabic nations, as God explained that he would make the Arabs a mighty people. Two were to Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. One was to the people of Israel as part of their covenant through Moses. The last two are prophecies by Ezekiel and Isaiah, explaining to the Jews that if they would stop worshipping idols, God would bless them. At no time is there a command for all mankind to irresponsibly conceive over and over with no thought to consequences. O6: DiversityCon makes an incredible statement here in regard to my point on genetic diversity when he says that "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."Not only did I not ever mention "black people," but Con straw mans here by pretending that I did, even claiming I'm obsessed with them. In addition, his own definition of "minorities" as being only referring to "black people" is flawed at its base. The lack of logic or even basic demographic understanding in this segment is surpassed only by his sarcasm.O7: Military RecruitmentThis segment is also lacking, as he claims he "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." He somehow ties his completely unrelated point in with the topic at hand by saying "desperate poor people are a good source of military fodder." He is then advocating that we pay welfare to families so they may join the military for the express purpose of being used in war. I submit that "cultivating" a welfare-raised segment of the population for use as "fodder" is unreasonable to the point of incredulity, and far less humane than simply not creating this segment at all. O8: EconomicsLastly, Con revisits his war premise by claiming that "USA war machines needs [sic] man power, and thus [welfare] sucks man power away from other sectors of the economy." Does Con have any sources to support this idea?ConclusionCon's arguments are not only all over the board, but they are bolstered by less than credible sources (Wikipedia). He uses not only straw man arguments, but provides no statistical data to back up his claims that the U.S. "war machines" somehow reduce manpower in other facets of the economy, which is literally not related at all to the topic at hand.