Theresa Winters Should be Sterilised.

I am however confident that I can answer my opponents points. I stated. "1: Slavery is illegal and frowned upon. Taking medical decisions on behalf of the mentally handicapped is not. " Kleptin replied. There is nothing in the resolution that limits arguments to what is or is not legal. My argument is that Theresa Winters deserves a punishment that is currently against the law. Besides, there are many instances of the government forgoing civilian rights as a decision for the common good. This situation should definitely be one of them. My rebuttal. That is true, there is nothing that limits arguments as to what is or is not legal. However I must clarify that we are both arguing for solutions to a problem. My opponents solution of Slavery is utterly illegal and repulsive to society. My solution involves taking medical decisions on behalf of a mentally disabled person for the benefit of their health and the good of society. As we are arguing as to which is the best solution to the problem then logic dictates we may also consider the legalities of said suggestions. The more legal a solution is, the easier it is to implement and the less harm and disruption it causes to society. There is no possibility under any realistic circumstances that the British courts will indenture Theresa Winters and/or her husband and children. Thus my solution is better. I stated. "2: Her children are wards of the state/under the care of new legal, who have done nothing to warrant such a punishment or removal of their freedoms. " Kleptin replied. In that case, I then propose that all children which are not permanently adopted into a household be subject to this proposition, whereas those who are be exempt. I myself could find no data but am willing to make that concession. We need to set an example that the government can no longer provide for bottom feeders under the pretense of natural rights. Feeding 16 mouths without them contributing anything else to society violates the rights of all other members of that society. This is not a removal of their freedoms, but a way for them to redeem the debt they already owe. Once the children have paid their debts, they may leave. However, neither the mother nor the father may ever leave the freak show. My Rebuttal I do not believe my opponent has fully addressed the point I made. The children have done nothing wrong to warrant such drastic measures as to remove their freedoms. The social services do not recognise that the children under their care are liable for the cost of that care any more so than a midwife would hand an invoice to a recently born baby. My opponent stated. "In America, "Octomom" generates a lot of publicity and has been offered enormous sums for participation in reality shows and even a pornographic movie. . http://en.wikipedia.org...... Of the offers she received was one from the UK, showing that there is legitimate interest. If the issue is with the traditional freak show, that is not the issue. The most important point is that she be kept generating money so long as she keeps generating children. " My rebuttal, I do not consider that 'Octomom' is exactly comparable in terms of 'freakishness' for the following reasons. 1: The birth of octuplets, even given the multiple births caused by IVF is rare. 2: The fact that they all survived is rarer still. 3: The case not only opened up debate on social responsibility and morality, but also on the very nature of medical ethics and man's right/ability to tamper with nature. In comparison the Theresa Winters case was merely a particularly egregious signal of the well noted collapse of decent British society in favour of a growing underclass. It is biologically and philosophically far less interesting. That said I must meet my opponent half way on one aspect of this. Theresa Winters could in theory generate income by offering to appear on an already established 'freak show'. I refer to the Jeremy Kyle show, a slightly tamer imitation of the Jerry Springer show which show cases and unconsciously celebrates teenage pregnancies, learning difficulties, criminality, drug abuse etc etc. However this could be done without recourse to exposing the children to the show, and without any betrayal of their rights. I must also stress that this would not only fail to recoup the costs incurred by the state, Theresa Winters would be under no obligation to part with any monies. She would also be equally able to engage in this show irrespective of whether or not she had been neutered. In conclusion I feel that I have successfully argued the case for the sterilisation of Theresa Winters and that I have successfully shown how my opponents alternative is flawed by comparison. I would like to thank him for an intelligent, entertaining and unexpected take on the debate. Though I can feel no shame (nor indeed surprise) in the event of loosing to such a skilled debater I do feel that I have successfully argued my case and negated his counter-arguments.