It is ethically preferrable to give birth to an orphan than to abort pregnancy.

Firstly, my opponents source (http://www.geocities.com...) doesn't prove anything. Those 'rules' were not stated in the first argument and are not published on the debate website. Therefore I didn't technically concede to any of the points. "It is unethical to choose to end the life of another." I do not concede to this point. First off, I said In the first few sentences, that fetuses under law, are not considered individual people with rights, freedoms, or protections. Meaning that I consider a fetus living, but not a person or truly a live independent being. It is wrong to take life of another, but it is not wrong to take the life of an unborn fetus that is fully dependent on another human being. 4."It is better to live as an orphan than to not live at all." I also argued this point. I said that the increase of babies would cause other orphans that are already alive to never be adopted. This forces them into to live the lives of foster homes. Places where they are usual abused and taken poorly care of. Most kids would rather die then live 18 years in foster care, and the large majority of them grow into troubled teens. Also, I stated that a large portion of these babies would be born with mental and physical disabilities do to their care free mothers not taking care of their babies during pregnancy. Once again why would they care? "By not argueing against them, my opponent agrees with them." Actually, I was practicing a common debate technique, where in the first round both opponents state their opinions and then in the next rounds defend and argue each others. I didn't have enough space to both argue yours and state mine. It isn't fair for you to just be able to state your entire side with limitless space, while I have to state my entire side and then argue yours. And my original statement, in and of itself, refuted all of those things I 'conceded' to. Not only that, but as I said before, those rules are not for this site, and you did not state them in the beginning of this debate, therefore they are irrelevant. "I will start by pointing out that life is greater and more ethically important than any suffering or pain (cenceded by my opponent). I 'cenceeded' aye? I never concded to that, and you never even said that for me to concede, you said we shouldn't kill others and kids want to grow up in foster care; not what you stated up there at all. "But it is even more wrong to kill the unborn. (Conceded by my opponent)" Once again I didn't concede to that or any other of your points. You can't think of a return argument so you are saying that I conceded to stuff I didn't concede to. Also, if this quoted text already refuted that it 'was wrong to kill the unborn' then I DID in fact refute that point in the last round. So you WERE required to give an actual argument rather then simply saying 'she conceded,' because although I didn't directly argue against that point, I did dispute it. Therefore I didn't concede and I expect to see an argument to this at some point. "Dead babies cannot be adopted... And it is preferable to not be adopted than to die (conceded by my opponent)." Once again I didn't concede to this, I refuted it in exact argument. The opposite of conceding. "An abortion can cost as much as $1000 http://wiki.answers.com...... ." An answer from a random uncredible person from wiki answers (a website like yahoo, for those of you unfamiliar) doesn't count as a source. It's the same as you saying it, a person easily could have made that up. Not only that but you took the extreme numbers, the PERSON said it could cost 200-1000$ not just 1000$, an average is different then the highest number you can find a link to (I urge voters to look at this 'source') The truth is this: "In 2001, the average charge...for abortions... that are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure." From a CREDIBLE source: http://www.guttmacher.org... "Further, allowing them to abort teaches them to be more irresponsible." So you would rather make them take responsibility of their actions by making them stay pregnant, cause deformities in their babies, and do more damage to the already problematic adoption agencies. "We can afford them by not giving them benefits." Well that doesn't work, medical bills, doctor appointments, etc. If we are forcing these people to go through with their pregnancy, we can't just simply throw them out on the street. Of course, we could, but then we would just end up with more dead babies, but instead of babies that would have been dead before they could feel pain, these babies would die in stages of birth or later stages of pregnancy. The babies could also be deformed from things such a cerebalpaulsy, which are preventable, if you have the right doctors helping you. "It is preferable to live than to suffer (conceded by CON)." Once again many of my arguments went directly against the above statement, meaning that I refuted your argument, not conceded to it. And those rules are not on this website or in your first argument so they are irrelevant. "Had the baby been born, he would have lived. Had the baby been aborted, he would not have lived." Had the baby been born he would have lived (maybe, if he didn't die PAINFULLY from not getting the proper health care) He would have been adopted, taking away the saving other kids hard lives, that turn into bad lives of crime) Or he would have been born with FAS, deformations, seribalpolsy , or other serious life diminishing/threatening issues, making his chances of adoption slim to none, and his life in foster care awful, causing even worse problems (that he wouldn't have help with from family) in adult-hood) "No human has the right to decide whether another lives or not. (Conceded.)" Not conceded. (for same reasons stated earlier) My opponent made no attempt at refuting my arguments. Instead he falsely said I conceded, when obviously I did bring up those points and argued them negatively in my first argument.. He did this because he probably didn't have a response. Also, my opponent (by his (or her?) rules conceded to MY own points: Current orphans that are not infants will most likely never be adopted if abortions are no longer allowed. Forcibly pregnant women will not be helped at all financially or otherwise. Causing unborn babies to not be treated well medically and causing more death and deformities; and poor care of children that are not adopted. Many of the babies would be born with horrible illnesses and deformities, making them most likely not adopted, so they grow up in foster homes where they won't get the attention Babies who are born addicted become addicted to things more easily Summary: Babies that normally would have been aborted have a far greater chance of being born with a preventable problem that will cause them to not be adopted and live a horrible life by not being properly cared for in their childhoods. Healthy babies will become adopted over kids who have been abused and neglected in their childhoods, and will most likely continue to be abused and neglected in foster care, causing them to turn into troubled teens, and eventually adults who often commit crimes, do drugs, and otherwise live a poor detrimental to society lifestyle. Having less orphans would allow a larger portion of them to be adopted, this would in turn create less troubled adults, which would cause less orphans (they wouldn't abuse or simply give up their children for adoption anymore), which would decrease thee amount of child orphans, making a larger portion of them to be adopted, and so on. Discontinuing abortions would do the opposite of the above cycle, and make it even worse by having many more mentally and physically challenged orphans in the mix. Back to you.