Nadya Suleman should lose custody of her children!

It is my opponent's burden to show that the Octomom should lose custody of her children, and my burden to show otherwise. I will address my opponent's relevant arguments in order: ==== "Nadya Suleman has obviously been USING her children for fame and money that she has (and may be receiving in the near future from Britan? ). She has no real job,and has been mooching off of anyone that is gullible enough to take pity on her. " ==== She has 14 children in total, all seven years old or younger. [1] My opponent expects a woman who gave birth to octuplets less than a year ago to have a "real job", but this is obviously ridiculous. Also, the "mooching" and "using" of her children is to make money so that they can eat. Time Magazine has reported that the cost of raising JUST ONE child has soared to above $200,000 from birth to the age of 18. Nadya has 14 children, which means to raise them as they are supposed to be raised, she's going to have to come up with 2.8 million dollars. [2] Clearly, this amount of money is not going to come from a job at Wendy's (my opponent's so-called "real job"), and so if these children are to be raised properly, Nadya must accept any money which comes her way. If this means accepting money from media outlets interested in her story, so be it. Even if this argument were valid against her personality, it in no way effects the well-being of the children, and is therefore not a reason to remove them from her custody. ==== "She spends money beyond her means on plastic surgery and implanting an absurd amount of embryos inside her. " ==== The plastic surgery she had done was done before the octuplets were even conceived. [3] She has also said she will never have another child, which makes the embryos argument moot. ==== "She is,without a doubt, using her money more on herself than her children. " ==== This is a big call, do you have any proof? ==== "It is unhealthy for children (or anybody in general)to be put in front of a camera for a long period of time. Look at all of these celebrities that have turned to drug abuse and alcoholism,some have even resorted to suicide due to the stress of fame. " ==== Do you honestly believe the babies will even remember their 15 minutes of fame, much less commit suicide because of it? This is just plain silly. ==== "Also,if you act caring to your kids in front of a camera,yet do a complete 180 when the camera is off,it tends to confuse the children involved and eventually they will question whether their parent(s) really love them or not. " ==== How do you know she does a "complete 180" when the camera is off? If you have anything at all to back these wild claims up, I suggest you post links in your next round. ==== "This is what they lack in order to grow as a child needs. -A father figure -A mother that is (sincerely) focused on her children (and their welfare),rather than fame and getting freebies. - A mother with an actual JOB -Security(not talking about bodyguards),but financial stability as well as one on one(and group time) with their parent(s)/guardian(s)" ==== - People grow up healthy, happy and intelligent ALL THE TIME with no father figure in their lives. My girlfriend spent half her childhood without a father-figure, and she is one of the most well-rounded, intelligent, sociable people I know. Point moot. - Please provide any evidence you can to suggest that she is not focussed on her children's welfare. - I discussed this "actual job" stuff earlier. - You want her 14 children to have financial security, but you deride her decision to accept money from media outlets interested in her story? Make up your mind. ==== "So I propose that these children be placed under foster care/adoption with RESPONSIBLE adults that are capable of taking care of children. Since they are still young and are often not together all at once,now,or soon,would be a perfect opportunity to place them with people who actually care. " ==== I propose that my opponent realize the weight of the words she is throwing around here. We are talking about a mother and her children. Unless the children are in danger, there is no reason to even think about removing a mother's children from her. This is elementary human rights we're talking here. ==== "If you look at Nadya Sulemans background (not necissairly in trash magazines like "US" and "Life & Style") from watching the news and even hearing her side,it is clear that she tries to hide behind weak statements as to why she has walked this path in life. "My daddy never loved me" is a statement she made in "The Tennessean" newspaper a while back. It is a weak statement to blame your greed on the lack of love from a father figure,especially when you're an adult! You are responsible for your own actions as an adult,not just morally,but legally as well. I find it immoral to leave children in the hands of people who do not care about them or their welfare. " ==== Nothing of substance here. ==== "So what if she is their biological mother? " ==== Boy oh boy, I hope this is a joke. My opponent's final paragraph is a nasty, insult-ridden rant about a woman my opponent clearly knows nothing about. There is nothing of substance to the debate, so I will ignore it. ---------------------- I will now provide the one and only argument I need in this debate: The Octomom has done NOTHING to warrant the removal of her children from her custody. My opponent is yet to show otherwise. Thanks. [1] - . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - . http://www.time.com... [3] - . http://www.theinsider.com...