Should Impoverished Persons be Allowed to Reproduce?
Yes
Side Score: 15
|
 |
No
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
Well this argument is actually tangential in a way to the whole abortion argument, is it not? Since many of us Pro Choicers like to point out that abortions to disadvantaged mothers are very likely sparing the potential child a life of hardship. And thus...continuing the viscous cycle of poverty. But your argument here is more drastic than just being Pro Choice. And so of course as a Libertarian I have to give a firm "Yes" to the question of whether or not poor folks should continue to be allowed to have babies. The reasons are probably too manifold to list here, but a couple of them would be on the order of: "what exactly stipulates being impoverished?" As well as "Is this ban on having children not akin to Class Warfare?" And also, "Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but didn't the Nazis advocate something along these lines?" So, again...Yes, of course people who are wanting financially are of course entitled to children. It's also kinda guaranteed to them in the Constitution, as a part of the whole pesky "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause. So there is that. SS Side: Yes
1
point
Nahh. But you make a point. At one time the Government DID plan to create androids so as to perform all the menial labor and to slowly fade us out, as the androids or robots can be easily programmed and told what to do and counted on to follow orders and not engage in any sort of civil disobedience that may unsettle the New World Order. Alas, they found....robots and androids are expensive. So they did the next best thing: programmed US to become androids. And it is working, as you can see all these dipshits walking aorund with their smart phones; texting; texting while driving; addicted to social media; and now it's Pokemon Go which is just giving Uncle more information on our whereabouts, while releasing mind-control microwaves into our brains so as to make us more submissive. Psychologists have discovered with brain imaging devices that when a typical person hears that little beep or chime telling them they have a new message on their phones that they actually get a small jolt of dopamine or serotonin. These are two of the "feel good" neuro-transmitter chemicals in our brains. In other words: they are hopelessly addicted to their electronic social media. Causing obedience and addiction are the first two steps in mind control. Laugh all you want. It's happening, and has been since post 9/11 protestors and Truthers who posed a Threat to the agenda of the New World Order. You are becoming reprogrammed. A part of the Sheeple World Order. Hope this helps. SS Side: Yes
You've annoyed me to no end so I'm calling it the end and walking away. I'm sorry you see no good reason to repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved from Hell. Ok I accept Christ. I am going to heaven now I have said that yay! You fatty nasty face idiot moron. Oops I almost said shithead but I guess that one isnt on the list of insults you think Christ lets you say. Hahaha Side: No
I personally think that is a dangerous position to put ourselves in thinking that we can predict the future based simply on our perceptions. We have no idea how the future will fair for some people in spite of their condition such as being impoverished. Coming from a well-to-do family does not necessarily guarantee that person or persons will be successful in life the same as we can't assume that a person in a impoverished lifestyle will not rise above their circumstances and below is a very small sample of that very thing. Abraham Lincoln he grew up on newly broken pioneer farms of the frontier. His father, Thomas Lincoln, was a migratory carpenter and farmer, nearly always poverty-stricken. Ursula Burns, the chairman and CEO of Xerox, was raised by her mother in a New York social housing project. Now she is the first African-American woman to head a Fortune 500 company and Forbes recently labelled her the 22nd most powerful woman in the world. Sean Connery joined the Royal Navy aged 16 and worked as a bricklayer, coffin polisher and lifeguard before becoming an actor. Those of us who are well to do right now isn't necessarily guarantees that we will remain so as we move towards the future. Once we began deciding who should and should not live we might also be condemning ourselves to the contribution that those people might have had which might have improved our lives or our health. Side: Yes
|
Arguably the most loving thing one can do for a prospective life is to give him or her as prosperous an upbringing as they can manage (i.e. catering to all states of well-being to an adequate level minimum)…or at least that ought to be their objective. Therefore, I think it is highly irresponsible for the couple in question to create said life without first examining how their situation can accommodate this. The lesson being: if we want the next generation to have the best start in life, be smart and plan accordingly. Side: No
1
point
No, we can just have a big war and wipe out a huge percentage of the global population so the elites of the world can manage the remains after the war kills all the useful idiots who think it's good to kill babies..... and of course keep holding your breath hoping Jesus doesn't come back and subdue the evil bastards who think they own the world Side: No
|
