CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
11
No. Yes.
Debate Score:19
Arguments:16
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No. (7)
 
 Yes. (9)

Debate Creator

Harvard(666) pic



Should People in Poverty be Allowed to Procreate?



Should we implement laws to disallow those that meet the poverty line to forcibly introduce innocent children into a disadvantaged situation?
 

No.

Side Score: 8
VS.

Yes.

Side Score: 11
2 points

Wow...this is a hot-button issue to the extreme, and involves what some people would call our most basic right in the entire world...to have offspring and be parents and support a a family.

It conjures up visions of dystopian tyrannical nationalist regimes where the State controls everything. Including the activities in your bedroom. China comes to mind. Or North Korea. Or the Big Brother society from Orwell's 1984.

And I dare say that anybody who votes "No" here is likely to be lambasted and labeled a reactionary bigot or even a Nazi sympathizer. LOL.

But that's exactly what I'm gonna do. I have to say that I think it's a good idea to restrict women living in extreme poverty to have kids. Especially when they already have one or more and have shown a history of failure to provide satisfactorily for them.

How we would ever enforce this law, and what the parameters would be, is beyond me. It would take a lot of hard and thorough thought. "What constitutes poverty"? Oh, we could use the existing poverty line in the USA I guess, which is something like under $12,000 a year income for a family of four or more.

But sure, a law saying that anybody in that poverty level, or other designated ones for families of 2 or 3 persons, had to apply for a permit and then have an interview with a health care official before having another kid--I think it''s a great idea. It would ease the burden on the tax-payers and also alleviate some suffering of the kids and even the mothers who, for whatever reason, are not responsible enough to realize that one should not always have children just because they can.

What would the penalty be? For a mom who illegally has another kid when she's below the poverty level and forbidden by the State? This would be difficult. Incarceration is totally inappropriate and would cause far more problems. A fine is sort of contradictory, right? It would just add to her financial woes. I guess the State could take the kid away and put it in foster care. This would add to the taxpayer burden, however, which was one of the original reasons the No Kids For the Poor law was made in the first place!

BUT...that penalty would be a good deterrent I feel. The BEST deterrent is a most unsavory one, of course, and that is immediate execution of the forbidden child. I could see this happening in China or somewhere like that, but never here.

Indeed. this entire Law has practically zero chance of ever happening here in the USA. In fact, the system is set-up now exactly back-aswards of that, as it rewards welfare moms with an even larger stipend when they squirt out another rug rat.

I think the birthrate is down here in America among the poor, but I would have to check on that. I DO know that the poor still DO have more kids than the wealthy, and indeed this has probably always been the case. I do know for sure that birth-rates in America among the middle- and upper-class Caucasians has been on the down swing for several years. What with the sketchy economic situation. As usual, it is the minorities and the poor in my country who continue to be a burden and act irresponsibly. And often, dare I say it? Be more trouble than they are worth. Not all, but some.

Side: No.
1 point

Anyone who agrees with the opposition believes that it is morally permissible to knowingly put a child in a situation where they are completely disenfranchised. There is no sense in invoking "human rights" because you are enforcing your subjective views on a subject who has no say as to what life they wish to live; though one can reason that no rational person wishes to be absolutely powerless with limited life options.

Side: No.
Atrag(5553) Disputed
1 point

You have said yourself that is a choice not to be rich. I dont believe that but a child born into poverty do have prospects for a happy life.

Side: Yes.
Jace(5149) Disputed
1 point

That the opposition finds the non-eugenics alternative morally permissible is not in and of itself an argument against their doing so. Any invocation of rights is an imposition of one's personal, subjective views on the matter; the very function of rights is to assert claims upon and against one another, so I fail to see why that should disqualify the argument.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Ban the rich from procreating, you will see a nation of no poor.

Each generation, rinse and repeat.

Side: Yes.
0 points

in an objective simplistic sense, this is a really good idea

Side: Yes.
1 point

Many of history's top industrialists, inventors, scientists, engineers, scholars and political leaders came from disadvantaged backgrounds, and still do. Many children born into poverty develop a burning ambition to achieve and climb the ladder of success. They are ''hungry'' to become successful and in the process help to create wealth for others. We can witness this in a number of formerly poor Asian nations which were in desperate poverty only a few decades ago but are now in the top 10 economies of the world and rising. The ''rich west had better look out and recognize that we cannot rest on our laurels. If we limited procreation to the rich their off spring would surely choke on the silver spoons placed in their mouths by their well heeled parents or perish in their misplaced complacency and feeling of superiority.

Side: Yes.
Harvard(666) Disputed
1 point

Many of history's top industrialists, inventors, scientists, engineers, scholars and political leaders came from disadvantaged backgrounds, and still do. Many children born into poverty develop a burning ambition to achieve and climb the ladder of success. They are ''hungry'' to become successful and in the process help to create wealth for others. We can witness this in a number of formerly poor Asian nations which were in desperate poverty only a few decades ago but are now in the top 10 economies of the world and rising.

This statement only illustrates rare cases in which someone completely disenfranchised rises to power and utilizes that power in a contributory way. Most highly intelligent individuals who are completely powerless will not have access to resources that will allow them admission into Yale, MIT, Harvard, etc., where they will be equipped with the knowledge & networks that will tune them for success.

FYI: Not all of us rich kids "choke" on our silver spoon. Actually, most most of us get involved with our families' business which requires a lot of education and experience, both of which we accrue by simply growing up in an environment replete with success. Additionally, genetics can, in part, play a role: The genes that could've potentially driven our parents or predecessors to success may just have been imparted to us, thereby, essentially, engineering successful children.

Side: No.
Antrim(1297) Disputed
1 point

A lot of people, including me have little respect for those who cannot stand on their own two feet and succeed on their personal attributes without the artificial support of wealth. America must be more class/wealth conscious than than the U.k, as everyone here, poor or wealthy, has an equal opportunity to progress through the education system and achieve their academic goals. The industrial relations act and fair employment legislation ensures that all vacant positions are filled by candidates best suited and qualified for the job, and not their their class or background wealth. The only limitation is the individual's own ability. The unfair privileges of those with a rich daddy and a snooty accent have been done away with so that people are judged on their own merit and individual character strengths as opposed to the social standing of their parents. The list of successful people such as Ralph Lauren and countless others who were dirt poor as children made it to the top. The self reliant, innovative and hard working pioneers who founded America and made it the greatest country on earth were almost exclusively from poverty stricken backgrounds. Indeed, the ''American dream'' was founded on the premise that anyone with drive, staying power and ability can make it. I'm from Northern Ireland and am mindful that it was the desperately poor Irish immigrants who helped significantly to form America and whose off spring went on to fill the highest office in the land. President John F. kennedy was from poor Irish stock. I can be content in the knowledge that I know more than you. I know what it's like to experience extreme poverty. I was born in the back streets of Belfast into an extremely poor family and knew what it was like not to have food in my belly. I went on to form my own company with a workforce of over 30 and earned £10,000 net after tax for years. Not exactly billionaire status but enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle here in Bangor, Co, Down and have a reasonable apartment in Nice, Cote de Azure.

Side: Yes.
1 point

There is no reliable conception of what constitutes poverty, which leaves a poverty based eugenics highly susceptible to manipulation towards any number of ends (some of which we might safely presume are not particularly benevolent). In cases of truly abject poverty it seems unlikely that any infrastructure would even exist to enforce such a policy, and if it were enforced would lead to a massive and probably calamitous drop in gross population for a given society. For all other poverty, opportunities may be limited and life difficult but that does not mean there is no opportunity for a tolerable quality of life.

While one may raise an argument against bringing children into unfavorable circumstances, one might just as readily object to effectively penalizing adults for the systemic shortcomings which not only create but perpetuate poverty. Emphasizing the culpability of parents and treating the state as the solution ignores a far greater source of the problem, effectively ensuring that the problem will continue.

Moreover, the prospective child lacks the entitlements and interests of an existing person. The very phrasing of the objection necessarily assumes the perceptive and interests of the potential child for the precise reason that someone who does not exist can have no opinion or agency. Should they actually find their lives so unsatisfactory and hopeless as to be unworthy of living, as this argument seems to suggest they should and would, then it becomes their prerogative upon existing to remove themselves from existence.

Side: Yes.
Harvard(666) Disputed
1 point

Should they actually find their lives so unsatisfactory and hopeless as to be unworthy of living, as this argument seems to suggest they should and would, then it becomes their prerogative upon existing to remove themselves from existence.

I understand that both you and I are not ones to argue from moralistic narratives; but to play devil's advocate: would you agree that forcing the prospective child to live in detriment - to an degree that may elicit suicidal thoughts - is less moral than not having them to deal with such uncontrollable woes entirely (while knowing the statistical likelihood that they will be in such a predicament)?

Side: No.
Jace(5149) Disputed
1 point

Ascribing moral sentiment to my stance does not fundamentally alter its conclusion, and my answer is still no for the referenced rationale already provided.

Side: Yes.
1 point

And what would you do? Castrate them?

An option that I see logical is to give education to those people on the issue, which most surely need need, and give free birth control.

Side: Yes.