Current Events > Should the state mandate birth control for people receiving public support?

(+) Yeah! (+)

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

No, you didn't. If you think you did, you ignored the second half of my post.

Not at all. I read both parts of your post, and my answer is still perfectly valid.

No, it isn't. All you did was try to handwave it away with a buzzword, instead of actually explaining what the problem is.

If your argument simply comes down to "it's eugenics", then you still need to explain both why it counts as that, and why that itself is a bad thing. That's the difference between using something as a buzzword and actually having a valid argument.

And likewise, you still haven't explained what law compels anyone to go on welfare in the first place. So it's still not forced because they can simply choose not to go on welfare, and instead look for another option.
---

DarkTransient posted...

No, it isn't. All you did was try to handwave it away with a buzzword, instead of actually explaining what the problem is.

You didn't ask me to explain any problems. You asked what the difference between two things was, and I answered that. In future if you want the answer to a question, ask that one instead of a vaguely related question.

If your argument simply comes down to "it's eugenics", then you still need to explain both why it counts as that

Preventing people, who you don't want to reproduce, from reproducing is textbook eugenics.

and why that itself is a bad thing.

I don't need to explain that anymore than you need to give me a million dollars. I never claimed the idea is bad only that it's eugenics.

Nothing against my argument?

Aight.
---

JE19426 posted...

DarkTransient posted...

No, it isn't. All you did was try to handwave it away with a buzzword, instead of actually explaining what the problem is.

You didn't ask me to explain any problems. You asked what the difference between two things was, and I answered that. In future if you want the answer to a question, ask that one instead of a vaguely related question.

If your argument simply comes down to "it's eugenics", then you still need to explain both why it counts as that

Preventing people, who you don't want to reproduce, from reproducing is textbook eugenics.

and why that itself is a bad thing.

I don't need to explain that anymore than you need to give me a million dollars. I never claimed the idea is bad only that it's eugenics.

You used "it's eugenics" as a justification for why it shouldn't happen, so yes, you do need to explain why that's a bad thing - or at least, why it's a thing that shouldn't happen here.

And again, they aren't being prevented from reproducing altogether. They simply don't qualify for welfare if they choose not to take steps to prevent reproduction until such time as they are no longer on it. If they want to reproduce, all they have to do is stop receiving welfare (or not start in the first place). No one is being prevented from reproducing, because no one is being forced to receive welfare, and those who do not receive it have no obligation to prevent reproduction.
---

LinksLiege posted...

Nothing against my argument?

I already answered you argument before you posted it, back when it was DT's argument.

DarkTransient posted...

You used "it's eugenics" as a justification for why it shouldn't happen

No, I didn't. I corrected Bio1590's post. Don't go shoving shit in other people's mouth. Put it in your own mouth if you want it in people's mouth.

JE19426 posted...

I already answered you argument before you posted it, back when it was DT's argument.

I rephrased it in the hopes of pointing out the fact that you're making a bad argument. I'll try again in a more direct way:

Explain how there exists an intangible force which makes someone go into the welfare office and fill out the forms, in defiance of any objections that person may have.
---

The welfare queens get a government paycheck to continuously make future criminals. Thats how the system works...
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

The welfare queens get a government paycheck to continuously make future criminals. Thats how the system works...

I had a patient who was in her 30s and had 14 kids. I asked her to name them and she could only come up with 7 of the names. I asked how many lived with her and she didn't know.
---

Yes, absolutely. If someone is on welfare/government assistance, they have to be on birth control.

Why in the ever loving fuck would someone bring in a child into the world when they can't take care of themselves?

"Eugenics" gets thrown around ridiculously, but all it is is "personal responsibility."

That baby isn't going to get a job to help get them out of their problems. In fact, that baby will only make things worse.

That seems to violate basic human rights. Controlling how people use their bodies is not how you promote sexual education.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

That seems to violate basic human rights. Controlling how people use their bodies is not how you promote sexual education.

This is nothing to do with sex ed, and everything to do with preventing those who are reliant on welfare from creating an even bigger burden on welfare.
---

DarkTransient posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

That seems to violate basic human rights. Controlling how people use their bodies is not how you promote sexual education.

This is nothing to do with sex ed, and everything to do with preventing those who are reliant on welfare from creating an even bigger burden on welfare.

Human rights > sticking it to "welfare queens". And sex ed has everything to do with responsible sex.
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Absolutely not.
It should; however, be offered to everyone at little to no cost.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

That seems to violate basic human rights. Controlling how people use their bodies is not how you promote sexual education.

It doesn't violate basic human rights. This isn't systemic sterilization. This isn't ethnic cleansing. It's personal responsibility.

No amount of sexual education will convince certain people from having children they can't afford to raise.

lucidsun22 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

That seems to violate basic human rights. Controlling how people use their bodies is not how you promote sexual education.

It doesn't violate basic human rights. This isn't systemic sterilization. This isn't ethnic cleansing. It's personal responsibility.

No amount of sexual education will convince certain people from having children they can't afford to raise.

Da, comrade
---

The world that some of you seem to want in the name of "logic" and "personal responsibility" would be an absolute dystopia. If y'all had your way, human rights wouldn't really exist because you fundamentally don't respect them, especially for people who do things you don't like. This is eugenics and stripping a fundamental right from someone because they are poor, but it's acceptable to propose things like this because people don't understand human rights and because blatant classism is okay.
---

tamashiini posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Absolutely not.
It should; however, be offered to everyone at little to no cost.

legendary_zell posted...

The world that some of you seem to want in the name of "logic" and "personal responsibility" would be an absolute dystopia. If y'all had your way, human rights wouldn't really exist because you fundamentally don't respect them, especially for people who do things you don't like. This is eugenics and stripping a fundamental right from someone because they are poor, but it's acceptable to propose things like this because people don't understand human rights and because blatant classism is okay.

---

legendary_zell posted...

If y'all had your way, human rights wouldn't really exist because you fundamentally don't respect them, especially for people who do things you don't like

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you make giant, ridiculous leaps like that? That's just like the equally ridiculous leaps that alt-right nut jobs make when discussing immigration.

RedWhiteBlue posted...

My biggest concern with this is wealth gap, and how people being left behind in wealth are unable to afford children.

Basically it promotes rich people having kids and wealth inheritance maintaining dynasties.

Having children in welfare doesn't make the situation better in any way for the adult or the child. And believe it or not, most people do manage to get off welfare. Once people become financially stable, they get off welfare and continue with their normal (reproductive) lives.

And this isn't redlining. What inheritance are babies born in welfare missing out on?

lucidsun22 posted...

Having children in welfare doesn't make the situation better in any way for the adult or the child. And believe it or not, most people do manage to get off welfare. Once people become financially stable, they get off welfare and continue with their normal (reproductive) lives.

So what? People should be free to make dumb decisions. Sounds like you just hate freedom.
---

No, it wouldn't go over very well and would never be passed as a law.
---

LinksLiege posted...

I rephrased it in the hopes of pointing out the fact that you're making a bad argument. I'll try again in a more direct way:

Repeating a crap argument doesn't make it any less of a crap argument.

lucidsun22 posted...

legendary_zell posted...

If y'all had your way, human rights wouldn't really exist because you fundamentally don't respect them, especially for people who do things you don't like

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you make giant, ridiculous leaps like that? That's just like the equally ridiculous leaps that alt-right nut jobs make when discussing immigration.

RedWhiteBlue posted...

My biggest concern with this is wealth gap, and how people being left behind in wealth are unable to afford children.

Basically it promotes rich people having kids and wealth inheritance maintaining dynasties.

Having children in welfare doesn't make the situation better in any way for the adult or the child. And believe it or not, most people do manage to get off welfare. Once people become financially stable, they get off welfare and continue with their normal (reproductive) lives.

And this isn't redlining. What inheritance are babies born in welfare missing out on?

People in this topic have supported stripping others of one of the most fundamental human rights (reproductive freedom and the right to have children), with no other information than that they are poor enough to need welfare. That's pretty clear evidence of a lack of respect for human rights. And it's not just this topic, any topic where there's a discussion of a human rights issue, half of CE is giddy at the thought of abridging or abolishing that right or denying it to some disfavored group. There's no leaping required.
---