Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Birth Control

Mandatory Birth Control Welfare Requirement Debate
Kirby Rider
BCOM/275
July 18, 2013
David Morrisson

Mandatory Birth Control Welfare Requirement Debate The American welfare system began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, to aid families with little or no income. The welfare system expanded over the following six decades. Allegations of welfare fraud and abuse increased proportionally. Some welfare recipients were staying unmarried, unemployed, or acquiring more children to manipulate the system and qualify for more aid (Welfareinfo.org, 2013). In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a bill turning control of the welfare system over to the individual states. Thus, allowing states to choose their
Having children should not be forbidden; however, temporarily restrictions while a potential mother or father is dependent upon taxpayer backed state assistance should be required. This should help eliminate many of the cases of welfare abuse by decoupling the desire to have children and the current financial incentive of welfare recipients to have more children. This creates a further incentive for seeking employment and self improvement of potential mothers or fathers wanting children and should reduce the amount of time a recipient stays in the welfare system.
Universal Health care and contraception A person should be required to use birth control to receive government assistance if he or she is cannot to support and feed themselves and any children he or she already has. If this person refuses to participate in preventative measures for religious or other reasons then monetary assistance should eliminated if they were to have another pregnancy. The state should provide free contraception to them as part of their assistance. Free vasectomies to the men should be offered as part of this program.
Con
Several logic errors or fallacies were noted in the con arguments, which further weakened the strengths of the con side of the debate. There were two direct parallels between the pro and con arguments. One of the set of arguments is not directly paired, but did overlap with some relevance. The team determined at the con argument of religious belief is a fallacy, shifting the burden of proof. The con argument of universal health care addresses the religious argument without side stepping the issue. The team evaluation also determined the con argument is an argument from popularity. Further, the separation of church and state should not allow or require that state welfare policies cater to individual religious concerns. There are numerous legal precedents, such as Roe v Wade that establish government policy despite conflicting religious perspective.
On the issue of constitutional rights, the team opinion again found the pro argument better reasoned. The most convincing aspects of the pro argument were welfare is an entitlement program, not a constitutional right, and entitlement programs can place restrictions. This was viewed as the pro side providing legal precedent. The con side is a statement of faulty comparison and does not provide any counterargument to pro side’s establishment of the legal