Abortion is O.K in the very worst case scenario.

First, I would like to congratulate con on a beautiful second round. Thanks to TUF and MyDinosaurHands once again for making my arguments possible.First round: "Very worst case scenarios means the very, VERY worst case scenario thinkable. By accepting, you can not argue that my scenario is invalid." Please consider this. I gave you an outline of what I was going to do in this debate. You may not argue against my scenario. Sorry if this was misleading. I never said "I agree" anywhere in the personal message. The agreement between us was implied, yet it shouldn't be. Here is our message on this: dtaylor971 The very worst case scenario... Yes, it would.But I can take it a step down and not have it kill the mother. MyDinosaurHands Like child with defects, rape baby and incest baby? dtaylor971 Yep. MyDinosaurHands Ok so we've got defects, rape babies and incest babies still on the table. Is there anything else you'd like to add? dtaylor971 Not really. Anyway, on to rebuttals.--Diseases--My opponent points out that the baby has low chances to get the diseases. However, I was just putting a few diseases out there to show you the picture. That is why I said "which may include."Rebuttal of P1: ExpensesRebuttal I: My opponent makes a claim that Amanda could afford birth but not abortion. However, birth costs $3,500, $3,000 more than a clean abortion (1). She does not have access to a clean water, how do you expect her to be found along the pro-life groups? Even if she was found, the anti-abortion groups would have to pay for much more than surgery, such as clean water/food for the baby, household items, and normal living items. Amanda would not want to bring a child into a world in those conditions.Rebuttal II: My opponent claims that Amanda's scenario is very rare. I do not see how this is relevant to the case. The title says "In worst case scenario." The worst case scenario could be a case that has never happened before, and it fails to affect the resolution. Yes, Amanda's scenario is rare, but it is close to the worst case scenario. --Failed to mention--As my opponent pointed out, I failed to mention the prices of the surgery. However, he failed to do so also, meaning I can now specify the price of the surgery in the scenario. Here is the very worst case scenario that could happen:Due to the extra weight she carried in the baby, she must have a heart transplant because her heart is far too weak and no pacemakers are available. This costs $997,000 dollars (2).And due to the extra stress on breathing and eating while she held the baby, she needs a Tracheotomy to breathe properly. This costs $205,000 dollars (3).Finally, she needs an intestine transplant. All of the extra eating she did for the baby during carry took a toll on her intestines and weakened her liver. She must have a transplant. This costs $1,120,000 (4).That is about $2,200,000.(1) http://www.parents.com...(2) http://www.healthcarebusinesstech.com...(3) http://www.therichest.com...(4) http://www.investopedia.com...Rebuttal of P2: Why Abortion Should be Treated as KillingRebuttal III: My opponent claims that when abortion takes place, you are taking away the possibility of life in the future, like killing. What my opponent failed to realize in this section is that the baby will die 999 out of 1,000 times. While there is still a possibility for life, it is a very slim one at that. For example, if Amanda proceeds with birth, she will lose 30 years of her life. If Amanda proceeds with birth 1,000 times (the supposed number for life) she will lose 3,000 years of HER life. The baby wouldn't live that long due to the horrible living conditions and the defects that he/she has. Plus, no one ever lives 3,000 years...Given the astronomical chance that the baby even survives, he/she will never be able to walk or talk. He/she will be living in terrible conditions that are unsuitable for a newborn baby. On top of all of that, Amanda, the baby's mother, would die much earlier in life. Even if Amanda lives a long life, she only had a 5% chance to even be able to CARE for the baby, let alone care for herself if she can't eat or do any normal things!On to the opponent's point. While saying that the baby's life would be taken away, he contradicts himself (kinda). He fails to show that with birth, Amanda's FUTURE LIFE would be cut back thirty years. By your point, shouldn't BIRTH be treated as killing for Amanda?You may argue that the baby will live longer than Amanda's life, but that is not the case. Due to the birth defects the baby is guaranteed to have, he/she will likely die well before thirty years. Rebuttal of P3: Why Unborn Babies should be Treated as LivingRebuttal IV: First, I really need to argue your house example. It is O.K to burn down a house, or destroy it in some other way, because the house could portray serious harm and kill people, such as if it collapses. Maybe the house was built in the wrong location and is a hazard for water or for life. It is also O.K to destroy a potential to exist because of the bad possibilities it has, as shown above (5).Rebuttal V: I feel like I have already refuted the majority of the rest of your argument in rebuttal III. I have shown that by having the baby, Amanda loses her future life. The baby will likely not even HAVE a life as it will die 999 out of 1,000 times. I have also shown that the baby will have one of the worst lives possible.(5) http://www.forbes.com...Rebuttal of P4: To the Question!Rebuttal VI: My opponent's reasoning lies on the "facts" he presented above, which were all refuted by me. Therefore, I see no need to refute his decision, as I have already undermined it. However, for the sake of debate, I will.You say that it is our moral obligation to allow life no matter how long the odds. However, this is your opinion. One may think the opposite, and allow life to continue, like in Amanda's situation. Her life will continue much more efficiently, and actually CONTINUE, if she gets an abortion. Also, it is not immoral for us to assume the baby will have a bad life if we see what life it would have. To assume the baby will not have a happy life without seeing what life it would have is immoral. Therefore, with that, it is immoral to even assume the baby will have a good life. Rebuttal VII: Last rebuttal here because I don't have that much more room to write. My opponent claims that life is worth it for the very few babies that survive and are happy. You do say that the baby has a 25% chance to acquire Tay-Sachs disease. That means 1 in 4 babies will get a fatal disease and die well before the thirty years Amanda loses. You also say that losing life years is a lesser evil than killing the baby. However, what if the baby only lives for one single nanosecond, whereas Amanda loses her life for thirty years? Is that really a lesser evil?Also, one last thing. You went on the borderline to say killing a fetus is the same as killing a baby. Once again, false. The baby that is in the world is guaranteed to have a life, if little at that. A fetus is not guaranteed to have a life. A very little chance in Amanda's scenario at that. ---Message to voters---If you do take the course of action said by con, please contact the both of us. If you are a voter that TUF sent here, it is clear that both my opponent and I agree on one thing: to contact us both to make the best vote for you and us possible. I also ask to provide a good RFD for each category. I think I speak for con here also.With my arguments and rebuttals done, I pass the debate on to con. I ask him to take it easy on the questions and arguments because I can't refute in the fourth round. Thank you for reading.