Resolved: The United States should value the pro-life stance above the pro-choice stance.

I affirm. Here are my definitions:United States: pregnant women in the U.S., as the resolution implies two polarized viewpoints of abortionvalue above: consider to be more important thanpro-life: a viewpoint advocating the right to life of an unborn child during a pregnancypro-choice: a viewpoint advocating the ability of a woman to choose whether to abort her unborn child during pregnancystandard abortion [as seen in my plan]: an abortion that happens NOT as a result of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's or child's healthMy standard is NET BENEFITS FOR AMERICAN SOCIETY. This is a universally accepted framework that gives Pro and Con equal access to the ballot. Thus, whichever side produces more benefits for people living in the United States should win today's debate.My plan is that we do NOT overturn Roe v. Wade. Women still have total access to an abortion. However, we EITHER spend time and effort encouraging pregnant women not to have standard abortions OR encourage those who do abort to have their babies adopted. This is because we should feel that the right to life outweighs the freedom to make one choice. The SECOND part of my plan is that women who do not abort their unborn children can get small tax incentives (ex: paying taxes on only 70% of their income instead of 100%). This slightly increases financial feasibility to take care of the child AND rewards women who uphold the right to life.The Pro burden is that the benefits to American society of steering women away from abortion with wisdom and tax incentives outweigh the costs.The Con burden is that the costs to American society of steering women away from abortion with wisdom and tax incentives overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits.Contention 1: The pro-choice stance violates fundamental rights. Oxford Dictionaries defines life as the existence of an individual human being or animal, where individual is defined as unique. Aborting a child takes away his opportunity to live and make decisions freely for himself. The billions of choices that an unborn child could someday be able to make are compromised by one choice of one woman. This creates an unbalanced system that promotes murder and neglects opportunity. John Mearshiemer explains that "aborting an unborn fetus is equivalent to putting an innocent person to the death penalty". The Declaration of Independence mandates that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Supporting abortion directly contradicts the Founding Fathers' intentions for an inalienable right to life in this country. Furthermore, the Sixth Commandment of the Bible declares that "Thou shalt not kill." Thus, not only are there American objections to standard abortion, though there are also religious objections. The pro-choice stance is an assault on both the right to life AND freedom of religion. Life is sacred, inviolable, and absolute. The fetus will inevitably develop the human abilities to think, feel, and be aware of itself. The unborn child will be given every ability that each pregnant woman currentlty has.Contention 2: The pro-life stance is psychologically more sound. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. An April 1998 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study on men whose partners had abortions found that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression. This is a drastic burden on American society, because the women and their partners are unaware of the psychological and emotional ramifications of having an abortion. Approximately 52 percent of the early abortion group and 67 percent of the late term abortion group meet the American Psychological Association’s criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Thus, "pro-choice" is an inherently flawed system that not only hurts the ABILITY to life of an unborn child, but also the QUALITY of life of anyone else who is involved in the abortion. Women are citizens, and their access to the pursuit of happiness is very seriously limited by having a standard abortion.Contention 3: The pro-life stance is a healthier method. Abortion increases the likelihood that women will develop breast cancer. In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for a woman to milk her child. When the process is interrupted by abortion, immature cells are left in the woman's breasts, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer. Janet Daling is a cancer researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington found that women who have an abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 50%. Moreover, abortion increases the likelihood of future miscarriages. A June 2003 study published by the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology estimated that about 15% of first-trimester miscarriages are attributed to prior history of induced abortion. Standard abortions not only damage the psychological well-being of a woman, but they also attack her biological health. Many women have sued the doctors who have performed their abortions, because they were unaware of these health risks. By encouraging women not to abort their children, we can improve the biological quality of life. The impacts of breast cancer and miscarriages are life-threatening, and we should take steps to prevent them.Contention 4: The pro-choice stance promotes economic corruption. Subpoint A: The abortion industry is a scam. The abortion industry, including the federal subsidies received by Planned Parenthood, accumulates over $1 billion per year. Abortion entrepreneurs are more interested than making money than assisting their clients. The U.S. is committed to helping others, not by scamming them to accumulate money more quickly. This violates American ideals. Subpoint B: Abortion eliminates the potential societal contributions of a future human being. The US would be an entirely different country if the mothers of our nation’s heroes, great presidents, scientists, athletes, and others had chosen abortion. According to Nitin K, an economic growth strategist, one of the four biggest factors of GDP growth is consumption. Common principles in our American system show that an increased national population, to some extent, increases consumption. A woman who chose to abort her child could have otherwise given birth to a man who'd learn how to cure cancer, invent a time machine, or end world hunger. Financial and social contributions to society are undermined by standard abortion.Contention 5: The pro-choice stance is medically unethical. The Hippocratic Oath is a document by which doctors agree to abide when they perform medical practices. It is intended to promote ethics and uphold morality. The Supreme Court notes that "it enables us to understand, in historical context, a long-accepted and revered statement of medical ethics". The Oath includes the statement, "I will not give a woman a pessary [a device inserted into the vagina] to cause an abortion." The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath from 1964 mandates an equivalent message. The idea that the Hippocratic Oath was intended to make abortions difficult or limited suggests that they are unethical. Hospitals are fundamentally inconsistent; while Roe v. Wade permits standard abortions, medical institutions seem to condemn them. To promote greater consistency and uphold universal morality, the Hippocratic Oath should be extended to prohibit abortions as a whole.I have cited sources and statistics above, as a key part of any Debate round is evidence. If my opponent would like to see the cards from which I am pulling my info, I invite him/her to request that I post my links in the Round 2 speech.Thus, I affirm.