The Instigator
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Theresa Winters Should be Sterilised.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,428 times Debate No: 9198
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

It is my proposition that once Theresa Winters gives birth to her 14th child it should immediately be taken into care and she should be sterilised against her will by the state.

This debate is in reference to this article: http://www.thesun.co.uk...

My arguments are as follows,

Due to mental and moral deficiency she has been deemed as an unfit mother to all 13 of her children thus far. It can be assumed that the 14th child is similarly at risk.

Her 13 children are being raised by the state, due to her faults they may never know a stable loving family environment. This is a poor substitute for a normal upbringing. This represents a terrible cost in human suffering, not to mention a bill of millions.

Mrs Winters and her husband refuse to work, and live on state benefits. As parasites who refuse to contribute but merely take they cannot be accorded the same rights as others, the interests of the state must take precedence.

Theresa Winters claims that she is a reformed character, that though she may have been an unfit mother in the past she is now capable of raising children. She has however made no efforts to prove this to social services and recover any of her 13 children. She therefore has no maternal instincts, and is utterly indifferent to the lives she has created and ruined.

Her vow to continue spawning children until social services permit her to keep one shows that she is seriously mentally deficient, she has no understanding of her circumstances, no concerns for her physical health. She is mentally disabled and unfit to make choices for herself, in such instances medical decisions may be made for her.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and I hope to have a productive and stimulating exchange.

My opponent details the case of a very troubled woman with troubled tendencies. He lists the following reasons for advocating the sterilization of Theresa Winters:

1. Theresa WInters is mentally deficient
2. Theresa Winters is morally deficient
3. Theresa Winters has been deemed an unfit mother to 13 children already
4. Her Children are all being raised by the state, likely to be poorly raised, costing taxpayer dollars.
5. She and her husband feed off of the state and do not work

I believe that my opponent is completely right in all of his points. However, I do not believe that she should be sterilized. I believe that she should be enslaved and sold as a freak show exhibit, along with all of her children and her husband.

As my opponent has pointed out, this woman is clearly out to feed off of taxpayer dollars. The punishment should fit the crime. To simply sterilize her is too easy and does not help solve the problems that she has caused. My proposal is that we put her and her 13 children on display as a freak show exhibit, owned partially by the state and by a well-known travelling circus.

In this manner, the revenue that is to be generated by their performances shall go to repaying the state first for all the free care that her children received, then for any other fees incurred upon levying her punishment and such. A further chunk of her money will go towards a fund for orphanages and adoption agencies. Remaining funds will be allocated towards her to use in feeding and providing for her children and she will receive no other financial support other than what she pulls in by teaching her children to jump through flaming hoops, sing songs, ride unicycles, or do any other variety of tricks.

This method actually generates revenue, unlike my opponent's suggestion, which only stops the further loss of money. We would still have to pay for her needs, her husband's needs, and the needs of the 14 children. My proposal bypasses all of that.
Debate Round No. 1
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

I would firstly like to thank my opponent for taking up the challenge, especially for having done so in such an interesting manner. I would not have predicted my opponent to have proposed such an interesting alternative.

As my assessment of the situation has been accepted, and as my argument has only been rejected by the suggestion of an alternate solution to the issues I have raised then I will concentrate this round on explaining why my opponents 'freak show' suggestion is flawed.

To paraphrase my opponents argument,
"I believe that she should be enslaved and sold as a freak show exhibit, along with all of her children and her husband."

There are several problems with this,
1: Slavery is illegal and frowned upon. Taking medical decisions on behalf of the mentally handicapped is not.
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.
3: The 'family' does not appear to be interesting enough, or 'freakish' enough to provide the basis for a commercially viable freak show. Thus I do not feel that this would successfully recoup the costs incurred to the state.
4: Traditional freak shows are highly unpopular in modern British society.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now offer my rebuttal.

My opponent's last response consisted of four points of contention that he had with my proposition. I will assume that if these points of contention are resolved, then my opponent will admit that the resolution is negated in favor of my proposition.

"1: Slavery is illegal and frowned upon. Taking medical decisions on behalf of the mentally handicapped is not."

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.

"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."

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.

"3: The 'family' does not appear to be interesting enough, or 'freakish' enough to provide the basis for a commercially viable freak show. Thus I do not feel that this would successfully recoup the costs incurred to the state."

"4: Traditional freak shows are highly unpopular in modern British society."

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.

I thank my opponent and the audience and I look forward to my opponent's next response.
Debate Round No. 2
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his well thought out response, I was confident that I had defeated the 'freak show' argument. 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. I urge people to vote for PRO, and would like to again thank my opponent, all those who have followed the debate and all those who shall take the time to vote.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and shall now conclude.

"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."

The resolution reads "Theresa Winters should be sterilized", indicating a moral imperative. As such, I am countering with the argument that we have a moral imperative to enslave her, and her children, in a freak show or traveling circus in order to generate revenue. As part of this, it goes without saying that the legality is not n issue, because I propose that this goes beyond legality. If anything, the laws should be bent for this scenario alone because the moral imperative is just that strong. Whether or not it is possible or practical is a completely different debate. I am saying that in terms of morality, my proposition is better.

"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 recognize 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."

I apologize for being unclear to my opponent. My assumption was that in return for social services returning her children to her, Ms. Winters would then have a debt to society for each child she wishes to keep. Of course, the money would be easier to earn with more participants in the freak show. As for the freedom of the children, I doubt they will fare any better in foster care. They will of course, be monitored under the supervision of the government. This gives them the opportunity to be apprenticed as well, learning how to ride unicycles and walk tightropes at such an early age.

"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."

The original popularity level might be below that of Octomom, but when the circus act is released, this point becomes moot. 114 trapeze artists swinging about with their mother, how cool is that? The public would also enjoy a reality show centered around a more controversial character more. Octomom may have been a freak occurrence, but people tend to get used to that easily. Crazy people like Theresa Winters will entertain again and again due to her unpredictability. Besides, Winters has six more children than Octomom. There truly is no comparison.

My opponent would have you believe that taking into account trivial matters like legality leads directly to the conclusion that my proposition is somehow inhumane or repulsive. However, the fact remains that my opponent's proposition is just as controversial. Sterilizing women can lead to a slippery slope, especially if the sole requirement is that she be declared mentally unbalanced. Furthermore, his proposition does nothing to fix the damage that has been done. A useless mother and her useless husband spawning more ungrateful mouths for taxpayers to feed is a pretty big problem. Sterilizing her will do nothing to replenish the taxpayers' pockets as we will still have to support 18 people for the rest of their meaningless lives.

Why allow that to happen when we can make those 18 people support us?

14 children honking horns and tossing balls to each other by the snout will definitely draw a crowd already. When the children grow older and learn new tricks, the revenue will skyrocket and hey will become an asset instead of a liability.

My opponent has opted to cut down a lemon tree because the fruit is sour. I'm just finding a way to make lemonade.

Thank you to the audience and to my opponent. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Hmm... I won?

Wow!
Actually I do think I did quite well, but kleptin does not tend to loose debates!

(PS: I did not vote because I can't).
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
oops, forgot to vote XD
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Yes maybe I am a little bit!

This is one of my first debates, I hope I argued it well.
Posted by Yakaspat 7 years ago
Yakaspat
Eugenicist!
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
I love it!
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Hey no fair! You should wish luck to the underdog!
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Good luck, Kleptin, this is going to take one helluva feat.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
At first, when I saw Kleptin as CON, I was amazed that he would argue for her to continue to have children. Nice.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Not really, the argument is not derived from the Sun, simply the reference. I am sure I could find the story from other newspapers.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
I'm so tempted to take this one because the sole reference is from 'The Scum' newspaper and it would be easy to shoot the argument down in flames on that basis alone!

Also, I have eleven adopted cousins (aged between 5 to 30 years old) who live in Hawaii and Florida that had similarly dysfunctional natural parents.

Sadly, some of them have behavioural problems because their birth mothers took drugs during their pregnancies, but they are still great kids. I don't think of them as any less than 100% blood cousins, even though the Hawaiian kids had a Polynesian mother, and are therefore darker-skinned than the rest of us.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Cerebral_NarcissistKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Cerebral_NarcissistKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
Cerebral_NarcissistKleptinTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31