The topic is,
The government should pay women to have children.
we are Pro , or government so we're FOR this.
Any good arguments ?:)
please and thank you :)
2007-03-18 13:34:27 · 13 answers · asked by Julia B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Women are already paid to have children. It is called child support. That is why many women get divorced right after having a child. The government gets the ex-husbands to pay.
2007-03-18 13:38:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anpadh 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Is your argument limited to the United States? Because you might have a good argument for other countries, such as some in Europe that have negative population growth. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, that's a really tough one. Good luck!
edit: Well, I guess you could also say that if women were paid to raise children, they wouldn't have to work, and could devote their time more fully to raising children, which perhaps would produce healthier, happier adults in the next generation. I'm not saying that's my position on the issue, but it is an idea for an argument.
2007-03-18 21:09:14 · answer #2 · answered by M L 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, first you would need a reason why you want women to have children. Then you need to set age standards as to the minimum age to qualify as a "woman." Most likely 18 years of age, because contracts are null and void, unless the person is at least 18 years of age or has parental consent.
Then you need to consider hospital expenses, and the amount of money it will take for each woman to raise each child. And then you'd have to consider population control...if you're going to be giving women money to have children then I'd suspect that a lot of women would be trying to have a lot of babies...so then we'd have a population mess on our hands. Also, how much money per child, is there a limit to how many children a woman can have? What type of women would be getting payed? There are just a lot of questions to ask, before I can take the pro or con side. More information is needed.
2007-03-18 20:41:18 · answer #3 · answered by Shannon A 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The government already does pay women to have children, even when both parents are illegal aliens. The premis that an illigitimate child is the responsibility of the government is pure Communism
2007-03-18 21:14:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Look to Western Europe for your answer. They are very secular and women choose to have maybe one kid as having children drags them down financially and career wise as well. Most secular nations have shrinking populations due to this reason. Religous women have children because God tells us to populate the earth. Look around you. Catholic and Protestant as well as Muslim families are large. People of little faith have small families. In countries with secular populations, the governments are fearful as they have negative population growth. The fear is that there will not be enough people to support the aging population, hence they pay women to have babies. In America, we have enough women of faith such that this is not yet necessary........YET. We are becoming secularized and will soon face the same problem as secular women choose not to have children so they can pursue careers and purchases. Hence our govt. will have to pay women to have babies so that our aging population will have future workers, soldiers and taxpayers to run the country and support them.
2007-03-18 21:10:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Women have been having babies for thousands of years without special pay. Why change now? Also if she cannot support the child than she should take birth control or obstain from sex.
2007-03-18 21:10:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Arrgh. You're on the wrong side of this debate, Hon...the only women who should be payed to reproduce are the ones with a higher-than-average IQ, and/or above-average abilities in the arts or sciences.
The truth is that presently, the women who SHOULD be having more children are already restricting their reproduction in deference to the planet. It's the ones who shouldn't be reproducing that are breeding like flies. A very sad paradox.
Perhaps you can modify your debate to include these factors.
2007-03-18 20:42:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
No. A child should not be the outcome of a financial agreement, they should be the product of a loving Mother and Father and wanted for no better reason than the love of each other and the child.
2007-03-18 20:43:40 · answer #8 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's called Gubbmint Cheese, have a bunch of kids and you can live off of the Gubbmint tit until they grow up.
Then you start the cycle all over again.
2007-03-18 20:40:24 · answer #9 · answered by Duh 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is done in Saudi Arabia, perhaps you can research that to see it's effects?
2007-03-18 20:43:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋