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

My opponent had a lot of trouble staying on topic in this debate. Further, she argued that she had not conceded my points without showing which arguments she had used or presenting any new arguments against the points she had already conceded. So, she has conceded them for another round. Argumentation: *************************************************** "Therefore I didn't technically concede to any of the points. " Actually, this is the way debate works. If you don't argue against it, you concede and agree. " 'It is unethical to choose to end the life of another. ' I do not concede to this point. " Too late. "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. " My opponent does not understand common debate etiquette, which I have sourced. After PRO presents his arguments, CON presents hers and argues against PRO's. My opponent did not argue againts them, and thus conceded my case. " I DID in fact refute that point in the last round. " You say that but you do not point out where. "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. " As I pointed out in round 1, because it would have lived had one chose not to commit abortion, the baby has died. My opponent has not argued against this and has therefore conceded. 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. " The average and the maximum are two different things. I pointed out the maximum, and my opponent pointed out the average. I did not lie; I submitted a fact. "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. " Not all babies that are aborted are defective; in fact, most aren't. And again, it is better to live with deformities than to not live at all (and my opponent still has not argued against this). "If we are forcing these people to go through with their pregnancy, we can't just simply throw them out on the street. " We aren't throwing them out on the street; we are simply not rewarding their irresponsibility and teaching them responsibility at the same time. Government's purpose is not to abuse the responsible on behalf of the irresponsible. "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. " This is irrelevant. If the baby would not live to the age that it would be adopted, it does not apply to this debate. "The babies could also be deformed from things such a cerebalpaulsy, which are preventable, if you have the right doctors helping you. " If it's preventable, then abortion is certainly not the solution. "medical bills, doctor appointments, etc" This debate assumes that the baby is put up for adoption. The poor family that gives birth to a baby does not end up paying most of the bills. Further, cost is irrelevant. Life is an unalienable right. "Had the baby been born he would have lived (maybe, if he didn't die PAINFULLY from not getting the proper health care)" Irrelevant; this debate assumes that the baby is born and lives as an orphan. "He would have been adopted, taking away the saving other kids hard lives, that turn into bad lives of crime" My opponent presents a new argument here. She argues that all unadopted babies will grow up to be criminals, which is not the case. Concessions: ************************** First, my opponent conceded this: "People pay for themselves eventually. Children grow up, work, and earn money. Killing off the future workforce is a silly suggestion to help the economy, especially when one considers the costs of social security. " (from R1) My opponent still does not have an argument that anything is more important than life. "It is better to live a life of suffering than to not live at all" has not been argued against. And when we prioritize life in this debate, everything clears up. No longer is being born with a mental or physical disorder important, for it is preferrable to be born with such misgivings than to never live. Summary: ********************************* My opponent has characterized orphans as "troubled", criminal, and defective. She has described the care of adopting families as "awful", "usual(ly) abusive", and not caring of their child. In most cases, this is not the case. Orphans can go many great things in the world: . http://www.demossnewspond.com... (just an example, not a source) People love orphans and treat them well. . http://www.partnersintl.org... (just an example, not a source) So, my opponent's hateful comments towards orphans and adoptive families were not based in fact. There are a few isolated cases in which orphans are abused after adoption, but even so, it is preferable to suffer than to never live. The choice of life or death is one's own. It is unethical to decide whether someone gets to live or not. The resolution is a choice. The choice is "to give birth to an orphan" or "to abort pregnancy". As I have shown, the first is ethically preferable.