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

Thank you for the clarification of definitions, I mistakenly omitted that in my original posting. Let me address my choice of CS as opposed to CC: CS is one (or two) shot deal, thereby removing the temptation to a) 'forget' to show up for treatment, b) 'tongue' the pills , or c) purging by vomiting. I also chose CS as opposed to surgical because of cost effectiveness and in consideration for the fact that the procedure(s) would be performed during a stay at a correctional facility and having someone fresh (or near to it) out of surgery would, in essence, be like ringing the dinner bell. Also consideration was given to the fact that surgical sterilization is far less invasive for males than females, and the chances of the tubes 'untying' is greater than the vas rejoining. If pregnancy did occur (about 1:200 chance)[1] after tubal ligation, the resulting pregnancy would almost certainly be ectopic, forcing the need for yet another medical procedure (an abortion) before the fallopian tube ruptures, which could result in death for the woman. ==Rebuttal for your rebuttal== Females may be more apt to participant in unprotected sex due to the promise of child support, but males would not. Just because a female wants to have unprotected sex does not mean the male has to comply, and vice versa. C1 response: In Furman v. Georgia, Justice Brennan outlined 4 principles by which 'cruel and unusual ' punishment is defined 1.The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. 2. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." 3. "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." 4. "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." [2] Eugenics is defined by Webster's as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed". Punishment, which is what this would be, is defined as " a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure" Eugenics most certainly meets the above mentioned criteria for 'cruel and unusual' in the fact that it is unnecessary, degrading, and mostly rejected in our society. What I proposed would be a punishment; one in which all parties were/are made aware of the consequences beforehand, much like we handle murderers now. One could argue that to incarcerate a person (especially for life) is degrading (so cruel and unusual) however we do it to criminals everyday. By my opponents broad definition of cruel and unusual, a child molester could argue his/her 8th amendment right NOT to go to jail, and be successful. Most people who are guilty of a crime know the consequences beforehand, therefore morphing those consequences from cruel and unusual to fitting punishments. This would be the case for non-payment of court-ordered child support. C2 response: My opponent says, "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." when referring to punishments many states have employed. Notice the inclusion of the word 'should'. Children 'should' be born into loving families (not specifically married) that happily stay together. Failing that, parents 'should' split the cost of raising the children equally. If that doesn't happen, non-custodial parents 'should' pay their child support for the benefit of the children, not to keep from going to jail. What people 'should' do and what they actually do are two entirely different things. If my opponent was correct that the above mentioned methods were/are sufficient, we would not be having this debate. The fact exists that, in total disregard for the existing punishments, a percentage of non-custodial parents can not or will not fulfill their child support obligations. Issues present with mentioned methods are as follows: a. totally contingent upon the non-custodial parent working. The state can't take what they don't make. b. I did not know about this one, I like it. Only problems are 1) what if the non-custodial parent has nothing in his/her name, 2) amount collected does not meet owed child support, and 3) how much of the amount collect would have to go to recover the cost of confiscating and selling the property? c. Three hots and a cot. Bonus for the summer and winter months because of the central heating and cooling. For some this would not be what you'd call a punishment, and by extension, would not deter the non-payment. d. Just because you do not have a license, does not mean the car will not start. Thousands of people drive everyday on a revoke license. Thousands more drive without ever having one in the first place. This is only a problem if they get caught while driving. This would generate another problem; which crime do you punish first, driving on a suspended/revoke license, or the original non-payment? If the punishment for non-payment was to be no driving, and you were caught driving, were you then ever truly punished for the non-payment? C3 response: I believe I covered this in my opening rebuttal. Let me add one more point. If CC or surgical means are employed, and are later reversed because the non-custodial parent has 'seen the light', what would be in place to ensure they didn't bring more children into the world and then 'fall off the wagon', thus leaving the original children without support once again, the new children without support, and reducing the likelihood of the non-custodial parent being able to meet the now double child support. Yes, some may reform and never have to undergo CC or surgical sterilizations a second time, but I present to you that they are going to be in the minority. Most that would reform and satisfy their obligations after a reversible procedure, would start out satisfying their obligations before a permanent procedure. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://contraception.about.com...