Nadya Suleman should lose custody of her children!

==== "As a matter of fact,on the link I provided as to how she is capable of losing her children is the fact she HAS NO JOB. What part of "No job" do you not understand?" ==== I understand it fine, but merely stating the fact does not argue your position. Are you suggesting that all unemployed parents should lose custody of their children, or just this one, who you seem to have an unhealthy hatred for? You have not argued WHY having no job makes her an unfit mother. As I've argued twice now, a so-called "real job" WILL NOT produce enough income to raise these children. She will be able to milk money from the media for years to come, so there is no reason to think that these children will be in any way disadvantaged economically. ==== "Also,the DEATH THREATS she and her children have been receiving from upset citizens endanger them as well as Nadya herself.Have you not been watching the news?" ==== This is an indictment of a bunch of "upset citizens" (read: overzealous morons) making death threats, NOT of the Octomom or her parenting abilities. Celebrities get death threats all the time, would you suggest we remove their children from the forever? And that's the thing; you are arguing that she lose custody of her children forever, but the death threats will no doubt cease when the hype dies down. Hopefully by then my opponent has also settled down a bit. ==== "I have constantly been backing up my statements as to the fact she is neither financially nor emotionally steady for being a real parent.I ignore the "God" issue as it is off topic.So what if she felt "unattractive" after having 6 kids? It's called makeup.And her irresponsibility to use that money on her unecissairy surgery instead of her children further proves my points.A responsible parent doesn't burden their children by signing papers saying it's okay to put them under a microscope!A responsible parent doesn't spend an absurd amount of money(given to them by the papparazzi or any other means) on things they don't need like plastic surgery." ==== Ok, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You think what she did was irresponsible parenting, and that's fine and dandy. But how in your mind, or for that matter in the link you provided detailing reasons one may lose custody of their children, does this equate to "she should lose her children forever"? People do stupid things all the time. There are strict guidelines a parent must adhere to in order to retain custody of their children, and abstaining from cosmetic surgery is not one of them. ==== "It would be much easier on society as a whole if they were individually given to couples who cannot physically have children,yet are perfectly capable of adopting or fostering them.People who honest to goodness care about them,not someone who flashes them in front of the cameras as if they're the latest fashion accessory.Justice is rare in America.Over 92% of convicts are repeat offenders,yet they are still allowed to roam free amongst us and do as they wish.Just because something is law doesn't make it right." ==== Unsubstantiated conjecture, or otherwise pointless to the debate. ==== "I can personally say I feel sorry for California citizens if they are to pay for that womans irresponsibility to take care of them on her own. As I've said in previous statements,there is no logic in having that many children.The only excuse,as weak as it truely is,is if you plan on using them to con the system as some individuals on welfare have done before.(Not saying all do,however you'd be amazed at the amount who do) ==== Perhaps she, oh I don't know, WANTED that many children. That's why most people do most things they do. The Octomom may be, and in my opinion is, responsible for extreme idiocy for wanting that many children. But the doctor who allowed this to occur is the one at fault. My opponent is suggesting that the Octomom had this many children so that she could use them for money. Nothing other than paparazzi garbage and my opponent's bias to back it up, so I'll disregard it. ==== "It seems my opponent doesn't watch the news,otherwise he'd know exactly what I'm saying and where I'm getting my statements from. The only way you cannot know any of this is if you live under a rock,or a 3rd world country with no television-ever. ==== I know the story quite well, but I'm not going to take the news' version of the story's word for it in this debate. YOU are my opponent, YOU are tasked with showing why she is unfit to raise the children, and you have failed to do so. The information I obtain from the news is not relevant to this debate. ==== "Is it really in the childrens best interest to leave them with someone who doesnt really love them? Is it really in the childrens best interest to be constantly surveilanced and grow up being scrutinized for what their mother has done?" ==== "No" and "perhaps", respectively. You have done nothing to show that she doesn't love her children, so that point is out. Perhaps it is in their best interest to continue living with their mother, and perhaps it isn't. Only time will tell. What's really important, though, is that she has done nothing to warrant having her children removed from her custody. Call her an idiot, call her selfish, call her crazy, and I'll probably agree with you. But, as I've said, there are very strict guidelines in place to ensure people don't unnecessarily lose custody of their children, and my opponent has done nothing to show that the Octomom is guilty of any offense which would warrant it. ==== "If you say "no" to both questions then there is no reason to support con whatsoever.Otherwise,feel free to hear angry Californians give her and her children more death threats." ==== "Angry mob mentality is no longer the exception, it's the rule, and I'm startin' to feel a lot like, Charlton Heston, standin' on a primate planet, apes and orangutans, who ran it to the ground, with the generals and the armies that obeyed them." Sorry, I don't know what came over me. My opponent had the burden in this debate to show that the Octomom should have her children removed from her custody, because my position was the default (i.e. that they should stay with her). My opponent has shown that the Octomom is unemployed and that she has had plastic surgery, but these are clearly not reasons in and of themselves for the removal of these children. The rest of my opponent's argument has been pure conjecture, such as that she doesn't love the children and that she is spending most of the money which is meant for them. As there has been no evidence provided for these claims, we can ignore them. Vote CON. Thanks.