The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Bricheze
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

It's time to stop depraved madmen from breeding two-headed human freaks at the taxpayers' expense

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 919 times Debate No: 6479
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Evil, calculating Mike Pedance, an unemployed nuisance caller, has persuaded his partner Lisa Chamberlain, also unemployed, to give birth to a hideously deformed human monstrosity and he wants the taxpayer to foot the bill.

This benefit-scrounging former telesales agent is deliberately planning to bring a baby with two heads into the world, even though the doctors at the wicked couple's government-funded hospital advised them to terminate the pregnancy.

They told sinister-looking Pedance and grossly overweight Chamberlain that if the pregnancy were allowed to reach full term, the mutant baby would have only 20% chance of survival.

http://www.thesun.co.uk...

Nevertheless, these depraved potential parents are refusing to sanction an abortion and are insisting that the taxpayer funds the hospital treatment necessary during Chamberlain's pregnancy and beyond. As you can imagine, given the extent of the foetus' disabilities, if the infant does survive, the long term cost to the taxpayer will be enormous.

Even though he is not married to Chamberlain and has, therefore, engaged in pre-marital sex, Pedance claims to be a devout Catholic and says the foetus is a "gift from God".

"No it jolly well isn't, you frothing nutjob, if anything it's a gift from decent hardworking taxpayers like me." That's what I would say if I met him. So, what do you think? Is it right that hard-pressed taxpayers should fund a religious madman who wants to inflict pain and suffering on his future child by allowing it to be born with horrific abnormalities? I think not. If you agree, please vote Pro.

Thank you.
Bricheze

Con

Religious people are against aborting their unborn children. That is a common belief in most religions, and especially in this couples.

"Evil, calculating Mike Pedance, an unemployed nuisance caller,"

Just because he was in between jobs, it does not mean he is a 'benefit-scrounger.' What happens when you are told that you have almost no chance of getting pregnant (as they were) you stop using protection, as their is really no need. The baby easily could have been an accident, and the husband has probably been looking for a better job, so he could afford a family.

"This benefit-scrounging former telesales agent is deliberately planning to bring a baby with two heads into the world, even though the doctors at the wicked couple's government-funded hospital advised them to terminate the pregnancy."

They had good reasoning, their chances of getting pregnant again is slim to none, and the twins have a chance of survival, and a fairly good life:

The mother said: "I'd been diagnosed with polycystic ovaries in the past, which harms a woman's chances of children.
Over the years I've been for so many tests and check-ups I'd virtually given up hope. But on December 18th I finally found I was pregnant. Naturally Mike and I were so, so pleased. We'd waited so long and been through such a lot together."

"They told sinister-looking Pedance and grossly overweight Chamberlain that if the pregnancy were allowed to reach full term, the mutant baby would have only 20% chance of survival."

It hardly seems fair to call a women obese, the disease she has (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome) causes weight gain. A 20% chance is still a chance worth taking, if it means a possible chance of having children, when you will most likely never get pregnant again. 20 % is better then the slim to none chance of her getting pregnant again.

"Nevertheless, these depraved potential parents are refusing to sanction an abortion and are insisting that the taxpayer funds the hospital treatment necessary during Chamberlain's pregnancy and beyond. As you can imagine, given the extent of the foetus' disabilities, if the infant does survive, the long term cost to the taxpayer will be enormous."

Life can be expensive sometimes. But that doesn't meant we should force death.

"Even though he is not married to Chamberlain and has, therefore, engaged in pre-marital sex, Pedance claims to be a devout Catholic and says the foetus is a 'gift from God'."

They were engaged. And do not judge person's religious views when you have not spoken to or meant them.

"'No it jolly well isn't, you frothing nutjob, if anything it's a gift from decent hardworking taxpayers like me.' That's what I would say if I met him. So, what do you think? Is it right that hard-pressed taxpayers should fund a religious madman who wants to inflict pain and suffering on his future child by allowing it to be born with horrific abnormalities? I think not. If you agree, please vote Pro."

How do you know that he is a 'religious mad man' it didn't say he was in the article, nor did it lead you to believe he was, you haven't talked to him or meant him. You negatively judged them with no reasoning, evidence, or proof behind it. And his children could live very happy healthy lives. Abigael and Brittany (Girls born with the same condition) are eighteen and living happy healthy lives, who says their twins couldn't?
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Many thanks to Bircheze for accepting this debate and I should like to reply to each of her points in turn as follows:

"Just because he was in between jobs, it does not mean he is a 'benefit-scrounger.' What happens when you are told that you have almost no chance of getting pregnant (as they were) you stop using protection, as their is really no need. The baby easily could have been an accident, and the husband has probably been looking for a better job, so he could afford a family... They had good reasoning, their chances of getting pregnant again is slim to none, and the twins have a chance of survival, and a fairly good life:"

I think most of us have been financially embarrassed at some time in our lives, I know I have. When I was setting up my first company I had no income at all, so when one of my girlfriends announced she was pregnant (despite me taking precautions to prevent this happening) I was anxious that the child would not be born into an impoverished environment and, with her consent, arranged for the pregnancy to be terminated.

My contention is that this couple should take similar responsibility. Once they are on a more stable financial footing, they may try again for a baby and should their attempts prove unsuccessful, they can apply to adopt. They could apply to adopt now, but given their current economic situation, their application would be very unlikely to be successful. This underlines how unfair it would be on the child to bring it into the world in such dire circumstances, even if it were healthy.

"It hardly seems fair to call a women obese…"

Why not, if she is? However, in this case I merely observed that she was overweight in the same way as I observed her partner looks sinister, which he undeniably does.

"Life can be expensive sometimes. But that doesn't meant we should force death."

Further to my earlier point about taking responsibility, in this case the infant has an 80% chance of dying anyway, and even if it does survive, its life would not be worth living. Just as sometimes the kindest thing to do to an animal in distress is to end its misery by putting it down, surely the most humane course of action in this case would be to have the pregnancy terminated?

"They were engaged. And do not judge person's religious views when you have not spoken to or meant [sic] them."

I don't need to meet them to understand that they claim to be devout Catholics yet do not follow the ecumenical doctrine of that faith – if they did, Chamberlain wouldn't be up the duff in the first place!

"How do you know that he is a 'religious mad man' it didn't say he was in the article, nor did it lead you to believe he was, you haven't talked to him or meant [sic] him. You negatively judged them with no reasoning, evidence, or proof behind it. And his children could live very happy healthy lives. Abigael and Brittany (Girls born with the same condition) are eighteen and living happy healthy lives, who says their twins couldn't?"

I have no doubt whatsoever that Pedance would like to see the mutant child grow up to be an adult. He's a bit short of cash these days and a twin-headed freak could prove to be his passport to riches. Just imagine, it could be the star attraction at circuses around the world. I am personally against circuses exhibiting freaks for the amusement of the paying public, but a lot of people would pay good money to see someone with two heads. Even better if they had two distinct personalities! The left head might be shy and retiring and the right head might be rude and aggressive. Imagine the conversations the mutant could have with itself…

Right Head to Left Head – "Right, I'm going down the pub to get wasted."

Left Head to Right Head – (meekly) "Oh, please don't. You know I'm a teetotaller but because we only have one body between us, when you get drunk, so do I."

Right Head to Left Head – (Right Head spits in Left Head's face) "Shut it, you slag!"

Left Head to Right Head – (tears in eyes) "Oh dear…."

Although people might find this entertaining, overall, I don't think Pedance should be allowed to exploit his child's disabilities for personal financial gain, especially when it is the taxpayer that has paid for its upbringing.

Thank you.
Bricheze

Con

"My contention is that this couple should take similar responsibility. Once they are on a more stable financial footing, they may try again for a baby and should their attempts prove unsuccessful, they can apply to adopt. They could apply to adopt now, but given their current economic situation, their application would be very unlikely to be successful. This underlines how unfair it would be on the child to bring it into the world in such dire circumstances, even if it were healthy."

They believe abortion is wrong. I don't you don't but they do. And they don't want to commit to it when they believe it is shirking their responsibilities. My sister married for fun last year, a month later, she was accidently pregnant, she had only known the guy for maybe 3 months, and both of them didn't have finances. A year later they are rich, living in a big beautiful house, with one of the prettiest babies I have ever seen. Who knows, maybe they are unemployeed becuase their rich uncle died and they have plenty of money?

The truth is, you are judging their financial situation. He could be taking a much better job in a week or too. They could be rich. They could of had work, but upon finding out they were pregnant, had the women quit and the man searching for a better job. But since we really don't know, it is too judgemental to say they can not afford a child.

"Why not, if she is? However, in this case I merely observed that she was overweight in the same way as I observed her partner looks sinister, which he undeniably does."

First, off, how did he look sinister? Once again, way to judgmental, your deciding a person is EVIL based on a few pictures? Like I told you the woman's condition causes her to gain weight and it is rude of you to insult her because of it.

"Further to my earlier point about taking responsibility,"

And mine, is it more responsible to give birth to a child when, even though it might be difficult, you can do it? Or is it more responsible to simply 'abort', 'terminante', or it also known as 'get rid of the problem.'

"In this case the infant has an 80% chance of dying anyway, and even if it does survive, its life would not be worth living."

If they are abort the child it has 0% of surviving, if they don't it at least has 20%. The two children with the same exact condition in America survived, are eighteen, and say they are happy to be alive. Why is it inhumane to let these ones try for the same happiness?

"I don't need to meet them to understand that they claim to be devout Catholics yet do not follow the ecumenical doctrine of that faith – if they did, Chamberlain wouldn't be up the duff in the first place!"

To judgmental for me to even respond.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that Pedance would like to see the mutant child grow up to be an adult."

It isn't mutant, could you tell those to girls I told you about they are mutant to their face?

"prove to be his passport to riches."

I really don't know where you are getting this from. You don't know he is short on cash, and children, in the end, cost a lot more then they give. Not just of money, but time and energy, their are MUCH easier ways to just make some cash.

"Just imagine, it could be the star attraction at circuses around the world."

Seriously? If anyone is reading this debate, I BEG you to read this article and see if you read anywhere in it where it suggests the father plans on forcing his children to join the circus! This is just so... ridicolous! It is so so so judgemental, your making at least 80% of it up!

"Although people might find this entertaining, overall, I don't think Pedance should be allowed to exploit his child's disabilities for personal financial gain,"

Well ya, we should allow him to, but especially considering the fact that you MADE IT UP.(With no reasoning to do so!) He won't exploit his children and he isn't planning to. The other family didn't, in fact they tried to hide their children from the media because they were sick of it intervening with their life. But until the kids are actually born and living, you can not possibly say that he is doing it for financial gain!

Once again, I hope anyone realizes that you have made most of this up. Please read the article people, this man is overly judgmental and might just be high with the reaction he is getting from it!
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Bricheze, I agree with you 100%...please don't take the previous comment to heart. B/t/w, I loved your second round...it genuinely made me laugh out loud...I was at work at the time and all my co-workers looked at me!
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
THis was a debate of words an opinion. Since Pro made up everything he said after reading a report that said nothing simular, all I could do was say his assumptions don't count as proof and that was my point this entire debate. I didn't say we shouldn't throw life away (Actually I said I agreed with abortions in the debate) I said we shouldn't force this family to throw life away when they do not wish to, religiously, or as their unborn children that could live good lives
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
Terrible debate. Both sides fail to prove anything or provide an ounce of evidence to support their views.

By the way, Con's argument wasn't rational AT ALL. It was based purely on emotion and bias. He kept saying that we shouldn't throw life away (even if it is terribly flawed), but failed to prove why. In fact, he didn't even attempt it. He just assumed, as so many people unfortunately do, that we should just take his word for it.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Please read my point arguments before you become so sure...
"
They were unable to change the owner of certain moneys... :)
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thank you Bricheze, that was one of the most enjoyable debates I've had yet!

You are right, of course, I was being deliberately sensational and most of my claims were speculative to say the least.

Although I believe most readers will realise I was attempting to be vaguely humorous, there is many a true word said in jest. I really don't believe it is in the child's best interest to allow this pregnancy to reach full term

Nevertheless, I would urge the voters to vote for you because your argument was more reasonable and rational than mine.

And by the way, no offence was meant to anyone who is out of work, or has a family member out of work at the moment. My dad is a shipyard worker by trade, and thanks to Margaret Thatcher's policy of closing most of the British shipyards down, he was either unemployed or working abroad for most of my childhood, so I have every sympathy.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Please read my point arguments before you become so sure...
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Agreed. :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestonBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
brian_egglestonBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
brian_egglestonBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
brian_egglestonBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07