The Instigator
YoungHoole
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Gr8tDeb8er
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

The Octuplets' Mother

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Gr8tDeb8er
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2009 Category: News
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,960 times Debate No: 7086
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

YoungHoole

Con

I am sure that you all have heard of Nadya Suleman. The mother of octuplets as well as 6 other kids. This is a debate on the mother's decision to have these 8 children. Is this ethical? She already had 6 children living in the home shared with her parents, a small 3 bedroom home. Suleman chose, with the knowledge that she would need government assistance in order to care for their lives, to have embryos artifically placed into her. Artifical fertilization. Such large births can result tragically. My real point is, what kind of mother would do this to her children?
Gr8tDeb8er

Pro

First of all, here is the definition of unethical:

UNETHICAL

Adjective
morally wrong
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Con says that Nadya Suleman is being unethical by having all of these children.

Really? Considering the definition of being unethical. There is nothing here that says having 14 kids is unethical because there is no moral teaching saying having kids is wrong. Since we are talking about morals, Nadya did say that she did NOT want a selective reduction, which would reduce the number of babies she would have had. How is not wanting to kill off a certain number of embryos unethical. To me that IS ethical.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not denying the fact that this lady is stupid and should NOT keep any of her kids, but this is an issue about ethics. Ethics is what we believe in and differs between everyone. Killing someone is unethical. Having too many babies is just plain dumb.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Considering all of this, yes it is ethical to have the number of babies she did. Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 1
YoungHoole

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate, and I hope that it will be a good one! :D

Firstly, it is your responsibility to not only disprove my points but also to prove that she is ethical and was right to have eight kids on top of the six she already had.

It isn't ethical to raise fourteen kids on welfare and suck the money out of your whole state, already knowing that you're having trouble raising the six you already have.

She wasn't thinking about how her children would feel or how she would provide for them. It would be one thing if she decided to have all of these children naturally and with knowing how she would support them. Now, I think that most of this is all about the attention. Suddenly, Suleman is appearing all over TV stations in interviews, magazines, and websites. She loves the attention obviously, because she keeps appearing.

"The Southern California mother of octuplets receives $490 a month in food stamps and three of her first six children are disabled and receiving federal assistance, her publicist confirmed Monday evening."

"John Jain, founder of Santa Monica Fertility Specialists, criticized the decision to implant so many embryos, saying: "I do think that this doctor really stepped outside the guidelines in a very extreme manner, and as such, put both the mother and children at extra high risk of disability and even death."
"Suleman said she had six embryos implanted for each of her pregnancies. The octuplets were a surprise result of her last set of six embryos, she said, explaining she had expected twins at most. Two of the embryos evidently divided in the womb."
"An in-vitro procedure typically costs between $8,000 and $15,000. Asked on NBC how she was able to afford the treatments, Suleman said she had saved money and used some of the more than $165,000 in disability payments she received after being injured in a 1999 riot at a state mental hospital where she worked."
[http://www.foxnews.com...]

This just proves that she is using money to get more kids when she can barely take care of the ones she already has.

These children will most likely be neglected and I pray that their health will be good in the future. It is unethical.

"The term test tube baby is often used to refer to children conceived with this technique. The first so-called test tube baby, Louise Brown, reached age 25 years in 2003. She was born in England." [Taken from http://www.emedicinehealth.com...]

The first child conceived from this only lived to be 25, about 50 years earlier than the average death rate. How is all of this still right?

"How is not wanting to kill off a certain number of embryos unethical. To me that IS ethical."

Okay, but these children are going to have to suffer through risky health, a neglectful parent who spends all of the money on raising MORE children, and they will be living off of food stamps (taken from taxpayers…).
Gr8tDeb8er

Pro

Con says that raising 14 kids on welfare is not ethical.

Really? How can we base ethics on what con decides is ethical or not. We do not know what Con believes is ethical or what is not.

I on the otherhand used the exact definition of the dictionary to define what is ethical and what is not. It clearly shows that Nadya Suleman IS being ethical.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Con says that Suleman is using the money to get more kids, when she can barely take care of the ones she alread has.

Really? This woman is old enough to make her own decisions and if she chooses to spend money on having more kids that is her choice and that is not unethical.

This is a stupid decision her part, but this is not unethical.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Con says the children will most likely be neglected.

Really? The first 6 were NOT neglected and she is taking care of the new octuplets as of right now. Having alot of children does not mean she is going to neglect them. I have seen mothers having normal births of one child neglecting their children.

This even has no effect on weather she will neglect her children. Looking at her history, she has taken care of past children, why would these be treated any different. They will probally get even better treatment.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Con says that the first the first test tube baby died at age 25 and that these children will not be healthy.

Really? Because from the same article Con used it says this:

Safety: Studies suggest that in vitro fertilization is safe. A recent study covered nearly 1,000 children conceived through these methods in 5 European countries and found that the children, monitored from birth to age 5 years, were as healthy as children conceived naturally.

Note: Louise Brown is still ALIVE

http://www.emedicinehealth.com...

My best friend is a test tube baby and he is doing fine. If it was so dangerous the government wouldn't allow this treatment in the first place. That is a common fact and it is a perfectly ethical to having a baby using Vitro Ferilization.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This woman is stupid and doesn't think, but she is not UNETHICAL!

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 2
YoungHoole

Con

Firstly, I would like to start off saying that this debate is not revolving solely on ethics--that was just one of the points. It is also Pro's job to not only disprove my points, but to also prove that Nadya Suleman is right in having these children.

"We do not know what Con believes is ethical or what is not...I on the otherhand used the exact definition of the dictionary to define what is ethical and what is not. It clearly shows that Nadya Suleman IS being ethical."

Similarly, you cannot create moral standards and decide what is right and wrong; everyone sees things differently. Simply providing a definition will not make one thing ethical if it is or isn't. However, once again, this debate is not based on only ethics, but about Nadya Suleman, the Octuplets' Mother (in case you haven't read the title AND the introduction).

"This is a stupid decision her part, but this is not unethical."

It is my opponent's job to state that Nadya Suleman SHOULD have had these kids (and why). However, the statement above contradicts what Pro is supposed to show.

"Having alot of children does not mean she is going to neglect them."

It does not mean that she has been taking great care of them, either. You cannot assume that she has been being a good parent to her children.

"Looking at her history, she has taken care of past children, why would these be treated any different."

This statement has no sources or proof that it is true.

"They will probally get even better treatment."

Once again, this is an assumption.

"My best friend is a test tube baby and he is doing fine."

Nice to know, but we aren't debating about test tube babies. We are debating about Nadya Suleman.

"That is a common fact and it is a perfectly ethical to having a baby using Vitro Ferilization."

This is an entirely different subject that can be decided upon in a different debate. However, we are proving our sides about Nadya Suleman.

"This woman is stupid and doesn't think..."

Exactly my point; Pro has said it himself: the octuplets' mother is irresponsible for having these children.

"Safety: Studies suggest that in vitro fertilization is safe. A recent study covered nearly 1,000 children conceived through these methods in 5 European countries and found that the children, monitored from birth to age 5 years, were as healthy as children conceived naturally."

Funny how you forgot to leave out the last sentence of that paragraph: however, other studies have found a slightly increased risk of genetic disorders in children conceived through assisted reproductive technologies. (http://www.emedicinehealth.com...)

I will repeat what I have said earlier: "This is a debate on the mother's decision to have these 8 children." My opponent has failed to show the "Pro" sides to Nadya Suleman's decision.
Gr8tDeb8er

Pro

Your right, my fault. Thank you con for clarifying what we are arguing. Much thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Con has pointed out that because I gave my opinion that Suleman is stupid for endangering the lives of her children just to get public attention I justified that she should not have these children.

Really? Lets give an example. Lets say a guy buys a really stupid car like the Pontiac Aztec. Should he have not bought that car? It is one of the ugliest cars and has horrible reliability and performance, but that was his LEGAL choice as a human being.

Nadya Suleman SHOULD have had those 8 children because it is her right as a mother and as a woman to have babies. Why else would their be the female species? Then there is the fact that the state should allow to keep her kids away from her is the right of the state. Why else would we have a government.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So based on the fact that she can do what she wants (as long as it is legal and ethical) she SHOULD have had those 8 kids.

We know it is legal because there is no law restricting the number of children we have

We can't base it on ethics because that differs from person to person.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In conclusion, she hasn't broken any law and even though we might consider her stupid and wrong, it is her life and she didn't break any law so if she wants to have 8 children let her.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
but you freely admit that, because morality is subjective, there is the chance that it was wrong as well.
Posted by Gr8tDeb8er 8 years ago
Gr8tDeb8er
Bnesiba.

I think just based on the fact that their is a slight chance what she did wasn't wrong, but could have possibly been right.... that I should get the vote.

hmmm...ethics
Posted by YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
Thanks for the debate! :D Good luck!
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
not to give anyone ammo for the round but...

"Firstly, I would like to start off saying that this debate is not revolving solely on ethics--that was just one of the points. It is also Pro's job to not only disprove my points, but to also prove that Nadya Suleman is right in having these children."

well.. we're not talking about ethics, which is the study of what is right or wrong, BUT the pro has to prove, somehow, without ethics, that what she did was "right".

wait.. what was ethics again?

Still, in the last round, no one has told me what right and wrong are...

if it's relative to each person (which will lose you any LD round you're in), then I can't vote either way, since it's not good or bad... or do you just want me to vote on my opinion, thereby making your actual debate irrelevant?
Posted by Gr8tDeb8er 8 years ago
Gr8tDeb8er
Bnesiba you are right about that... and I did bring it up. I said that everyone's morals are different so how can we argue that what she is doing unmoral. We truley cannot.

I would have like this to have been an argument on how this is fair or not fair to the taxpayers or something more concrete then a belief.

(If youngHoole is willing to provide a defintion she wants to use for morality, I'll be happy to argue against it.)
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
If she did "decide" to have the embryos placed inside of her. The i'm sure she was aware that she would recieve publicity due to having 8 kids at once. Thus realizing that she would recieve money for being on oprah, having her picture so many plaes, and being in magazines.

Then, if she realized having these 8 kids at once made her rich, then doesn't that mean she realized taht she would, as a result of having 8 kids at once, be able to provide for all 14 kids and herself after becoming rich.........making it ethical/acceptable/moral/ok/whatever you want to call it?

Just another way to look at it....
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
Predominant problem in debates I've noticed:

no framework for morality.

alot of debates are talking about if something is "moral" or "ethical" but neither side provides any definition of these terms.

So... as the pro puts it:
Acting Badly (unethical) means Acting contrarily to acting good.
wow... I've been enlightened, now I can go and tell the world what good and bad are... oh wait, I still don't know...

the con ignores morality completely as well, and because of this, there is no possible way to properly judge this round. (other than judge opinion, which is never a good way to judge anything)

Thank you.
Posted by YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
:D thanks for acknowledging the avatar. Haha, it is pretty cool isn't it?
Posted by rageAgainstTheDebate 8 years ago
rageAgainstTheDebate
Con wins due to amazing avatar. response to con's avatar: "YA RLY!"
Posted by YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
It didn't "just happen." She chose to have all 8 embryos implanted...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
YoungHooleGr8tDeb8erTied
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 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
YoungHooleGr8tDeb8erTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
YoungHooleGr8tDeb8erTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Gr8tDeb8er 8 years ago
Gr8tDeb8er
YoungHooleGr8tDeb8erTied
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