CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:12
Arguments:18
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Governed childbirth. (10)

Debate Creator

Steve1010(7) pic



Governed childbirth.

Determining if a parent is fit to care for a child is already something that can be decided by the courts but unfortunately, this is not a very efficient method of ensuring that the youth are not subjected to violence and abuse which could cause the development of violent and disruptive culture in future generations making it more likely for future generation to be subject to the same upbringing.

As a scenario imagine that in order to procreation a potential parent or parents are subjected to a process designed to ensure future generations are free of poverty, abuse, criminal behavior and much more.

There are however ethical concerns in such a restriction such as punishments for the attempt to procreate without authority, forced abortion to ensure there aren't children subject to the system perhaps this would cause far fewer children to be pushed into the system making giving the children that are more attention and better help and can our leaders be trusted with such a big responsibility.

Greatly reducing violence, abuse, criminal behavior, genetic afflictions, poverty and many other things that can stem from a child's upbringing.

Do the benefits outweigh the means.

The youth are the future and their education, culture and core beliefs will drive the decisions of tomorrow.
Add New Argument

Reproductive freedom is a human right. People have the right to have children, or not have children, if they want.

Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

What makes reproductive freedom a human right?

YeshuaBought(2848) Clarified
1 point

Yep, you're trolling......................................................................................................................................................................

Chinaman(3570) Clarified
1 point

"Determining if a parent is fit to care for a child is already something that can be decided by the courts"

Does the above apply to Democrats.

You are describing the future of the world if Progressives get elected by low end voters.

Any sane person understands there is not enough money to take from the working man to pay for all the free stuff, so their only answers will be to control everyone's reproduction.

If you are a Special Need's baby, such as Special Olympics, you will be killed. Wait, that is already happening today thanks to No Restriction abortion from Democrats.

If you are parents who had three or more kids, they judge you and label you a baby factory.

They are already testing donors for good traits when buying someone's sperm.

Anyone voting for Democrats are part of this slippery slope of Big Government control.

1 point

Nope. He or she is describing a prolife government...............................................................................................................................

1 point

There is no such thing as a collective or social well-being, nor are there courts or government. There are only ever individuals positioned in relation to one another, usually in significant part by their beliefs in narratives of the collective, social well-being, courts, government, etc.

To advocate for diminished liberty of individuals by appeal to these narrative constructs is to express a preference for power to be consolidated away from the individuals in question and into the hands of others. In this case, the preference is for reproductive power to be placed in the hands of those already most consistently privileged by dominant social narratives. Notably, this doesn't do anything to address things like economic insecurity, cyclical violence, etc. but tends to reinforce the pre-existing social distribution of power which produces them.

This is done in the name of the "greater good" but there is no greater entity which exists outside the individual. When someone alludes to the "greater good" what they are really discussing is a social order that conforms to their subjective values, and when it is invoked at the expense of others' liberty it is their express intention to obtain this conformity through coercion. At least some forms of this are honest; the case at hand won't even admit what it is about - it postures at benevolence even while laying claim against others' liberty.

Steve1010(7) Clarified
1 point

So the argument seems to center around the group's or individual in power and the backlash of the public whose liberty has been taken. And I'm not sure about your view that social well-being does not exist are you stating that a group is incapable of achieving better living conditions or are you referring to the gap between privileged individuals and those less fortunate. In any case the governing parties that control the public will have a positive or negative effect on the general public regardless of the legislation but in this case let's say that the governing of procreation was to happen and was governed quite strictly a new type of pressure would be put on to the general public to conform to what is considered to be beneficial to the group or to the individuals leading said group.

The need to procreate is something that is rooted down to our more primal instinct and is a powerful drive that may or may not drive individuals to achieve the goals required to be able to procreate and depending on the standards of the legislation it can also have an effect on population and consumption.

If controlled correctly I still believe that it is capable to solve many issues that we face as a species and the interest is in what future generations would be like what standards would they hold themselves at and what cultures would manifest. Would the gap between privileged and the unprivileged become smaller or would it grow.

Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

When I deny the existence of social well-being I am denying, in general and absolutely, the existence of any collective to which well-being could adhere. My position is that there are only ever individuals existing in relation to one another, who frequently relate to one another through constructed narratives (like "social well-being"). There is no such thing as a 'public' or 'future generations'; these are abstract constructions that don't track a material reality.

My argument therefore does not center around a group or individual in power and a public backlash; it centers around an individual or individuals who are acting to limit the liberty of another individual or other individuals, and the theoretical defensibility of such acts when justified by an appeal to social well-being. I am questioning the justification which was originally presented for the policy (i.e. that reproduction can and should be restricted for the public welfare) on the grounds that there is no such thing as public welfare.

The notion of controlling any human behavior "correctly" is fundamentally authoritarian, in that it is an expression of the desire to conform others' behavior to one's personal preferences. The issues you allude to are not issues for the species. They are your issues.

As to whether the gap between privileged and underprivileged would diminish or grow, I've already spoken to that. The authority to regulate reproduction would be distributed according to the pre-existing distribution of power, predictably reinforcing that distribution. So, at best, the gap would remain constant but it could plausibly expand as well.

Chinaman(3570) Clarified
1 point

"There are however ethical concerns in such a restriction such as punishments for the attempt to procreate without authority"

Are Democrats going to be up for punishments for procreating.

Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

Not my position; take it up with OP.

What you and the Left keep ignoring is the importance of common sense moral values, responsible lifestyles, etc.

This was once simple common sense reality. Parents, (yes, we actually had the actual Mother and Father raising their own children the majority of time) taught their children not to touch a hot iron, or you will get burnt! Common sense.

Parents and society used to say...

Don't have one night hookups, you might get pregnant! You might get venereal diseases! You might get Aids!

Don't drink too much, you might become an alcoholic! Now the Left calls it a disease... NOT YOUR FAULT FOR CHOOSING TO ABUSE ALCOHOL!

Don't take drugs, you will get addicted!

Don't over spend or you will have major debt problems!

COMMON SENSE MORAL VALUES THAT OUR GREAT NATION ONCE LIFTED UP!

Today? The Left is at war with our Christian heritage, and never mention the dirty word... "morals"...ewwwwwwwwwwww!

Their answers are always in the form of yet one more social program, putting band aids on the problems created from these irresponsible lifestyles. Have you noticed how their social programs are doing nothing to stem the tide of broken homes, drug addicted parents, absentee parents?

It's getting worse in case you have lived in a cave for decades.

This is why our Christian heritage helped create the greatest most free nation the world had ever seen.

Progressives are doing all in their power to destroy the moral fabric of America. We see it in every walk of life.

You can allow biased Liberal media, and the Democrat Party, to condition you to believe Government is the answer, or you can use your brain and understand that all nations must be built on a common sense moral foundation.

Non believers were once smart enough to understand that Godly values were good for a nation regardless if you believed in God or not.

Liberals lift up big Government as their God and it is a complete failure.

The Left believes we must censor any mention of morals because it might offend someone. Can you imagine worrying how shaming one night hook ups might offend someone, not caring one bit for the fatherless child created by that one night with a stranger?

It's offensive to me to care so little about all the problems created by irresponsible choices in life.