Abortion

My opponent uses the arguments: "-Babies don't pay taxes." "-Babies don't buy anything." "Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their "baby", babies can't enlist in the military." Well, in response to these arguments I'll say this. Babies do NOT stay babies forever and also sure babies cannot buy anything but the parents will buy things for them such as: food, clothes, toys, ect. There is an entire Industry revolved around babies. Some examples: baby showers, baby clothing, baby toys, baby furniture and many other things. My opponent's next argument: "-Most children placed by DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) were from homes so abusive or neglectful that it would be unsafe for them to return. -Illinois spends an annual $14,871,200 in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Foster Homes/Specialized Foster Care and Prevention line -$8,100,000 for DCFS funding of personal services to prevent the layoff of frontline staff (http://childcareillinois.wordpress.com......) -In 2007 there were 111,742 reports of child abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois -In 2003 there were 25,344 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, more than 4,000 children removed from their homes, and 58 confirmed child deaths due to abuse.(http://www.fightcrime.org......)" Is my opponent suggesting that DCFS is a bad thing? My opponent's argument has no relevance to the topic we are debating and I will explain. Most of the children removed from the parents are abused and neglected and the major cause of the abuse and the neglect is that the parents are either hooked on drugs, suffering from a mental illness or the father is abusing the mother. Those are also the parents that belong to the class of lower socioeconomic Incomes and these people have to rely on the government(DCFS) more so then the middle class and wealthy. So unless my opponent claims that the majority of people who go to get abortions who belong to the Lower Socioeconomic Income class and either have a problem with drugs, mental health. or domestic violence then his argument is irrelevant. Another argument: "I know I provided more information than necessary to refute my opponent's claims, but this information is relevant when considering foster care and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. The truth is many children are abused in foster care, and many homeless in America come from the foster care system. -20,000 youth "age out" or emancipate from foster care each year. -Up to 50% of former foster/probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. -Twenty seven percent (27%) of the homeless population spent time in foster care. -Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all young adults accessing federally funded youth shelters in 1997 had previously been in foster care. -Less than half of former foster youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving foster care, and only 38% have maintained employment for at least one year. -Youth in foster care are 44% less likely to graduate from high school and after emancipation, 40 ï¿½€" 50 percent never complete high school. -Girls in foster care are six times more likely to give birth before the age of 21 than the general population. -Sixty percent (60%) of women who emancipate from foster care become parents within 2.5-4 years after exiting care. -Parents with a history of foster care are almost twice as likely as parents with no such history to see their own children placed in foster care or become homeless. (http://fosterculture.wordpress.com......) Now, these statistics not only refute my opponent's claims, but they support my claim that illegalizing abortion is more likely to have a negative impact on our economy than my opponent's alternative claim." Again my opponent seems to keep going on about the Adoption Industry. He is right the Industry would boom due to the few people out there who actually can't afford to take care of a kid. Only 21% of all people who get an abortion is because of the amount of money that they make. My opponent states that "7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide" Now I am going to use one of his own arguments against him how do you know what is really going on in the adoptees minds? You do not know what they are thinking. Lets assume that his statistics are even true. 7.6% adoptees who would rather commit suicide then to tough it out and survive vs 92.7% who would rather live,is a big difference and it further proves my point that the vast majority of people would rather have the right to life then to be aborted by their mothers. My opponent says: "I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent." Take it from me my father actually was an adopted child and he actually had a good experience out of it better then he would have had if his parents would have kept him. So according to my source which happens to be my own father contradicts with this statement. Also he says... "Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception" People should NOT be permitted to have an abortion in a case of these as I said earlier you cannot punish the innocent due to the evils of the guilty. He says: My opponent claims that "only" 1% of abortions in the US are a result of rape and/or incest. Even so, he does not argue that rape and incest should be an exception, rather that a baby acting as a cancer should be the ONLY exception. Acknowledgment of 1 single abortion performed due to rape and/or incest is justification that that abortion should be allowed. He does not make this argument. Instead he says that "loved ones whom they trust" would provide psychiatric support, as well as therapists. What if a girl was raped by a family member (incest), or even her own father? As I said earlier they should look for counsel by a family member who they TRUST. Like I said only 1%is due to rape and incest. Again his arguments have no revelance to the topic, Illegalizing abortion has nothing to do with the counseling needs of a woman that has been raped. He also states: "The statistics state otherwise- abortion rates are similar worldwide whether legal or illegal (http://www.iht.com......), and illegalization is not a deterrent from the world's most prevalent medical procedure. The difference is the mortality and injury rates of the women having illegal abortions performed, versus legal abortions." Of course there would be a deterrent from getting an illegal abortion. Firstly a lot of women would be uncomfortable getting illegal abortions knowing they wouldn't be as safe as they would be legally. Also the law its self would be a deterrent people wont want to take the chance getting caught and arrested for getting an abortion. He says: "I have addressed this in my first round argument- it is not for the law to determine when life begins, and when a "person" has the right to live, rather it is for medicine and science to decide." Well, then why is it that when somebody commits a murder of a pregnant woman he is charged with double homicide, but somehow when a woman gets an abortion its somehow no longer human. For example The Scott and Lacy Peterson trial. He says: "How many millions more of us are lost when our fathers masturbate, or when our mothers perform oral sex? I see no difference in this line of questioning." Life does not begin until the sperm meets with the egg its as simple as that. Well, thanks for the debate, aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?