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

My opponent has not debated me. He simply restated his arguments over and over again, and ignored mine saying that I never made them, and I instead conceded to them by not responding or making an indirect argument against them, while I did many times. He never once rebutted my argument, instead he restated his over and over again, and when he didn't have a response he simply said I conceded to his argument and I never actually made that argument. Don't be fooled by my opponent, this is clearly cheating. "Actually, this is the way debate works. If you don't argue against it, you concede and agree." The truth is I did make arguments against all your points that I 'conceded' to. I will prove this in this last round. 'It is unethical to choose to end the life of another.' My opponent says I conceded to this, but here is a quote from my arguments proving that I did not concede, that I did make arguments, and that my opponent should have responded with a rebuttal, not with a lie: "unborn children are not considered people." "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, one that by current law and science isn't alive." This is basically the title of the debate, with different words. I can't continue to be the con of this debate if a conceded to it, and I didn't because all of my arguments have gone against that exact quotes. Even by the opponents rules, ones I never agreed to, I still made arguments against this point and I did not concede. I have explained this to my opponent before, but he ignored my explanations as well. By his rules he should have made a rebuttal, but he never did, instead he continuously said I had conceded, even when I pointed out my arguments directly and explained I why I hadn't conceded. "My opponent does not understand common debate etiquette," Did you say we had to follow debate etiquette? I was practicing a technique many people use. If you would have asked me to follow the rules of debate etiquette, I would have, but since you didn't, you didn't have the right to say I conceded in the manner that you did. "My opponent did not argue against them, and thus conceded my case." I did argue you them (indirectly in the first round and directly in the second) and you never told me to practice the debate etiquette found on that website. You could have given me that link in the beginning of the debate and asked me to follow the rules. But you didn't, therefore you can not punish me for rules I never said I would follow. "I DID in fact refute that point in the last round." "You say that but you do not point out where." Let's look at the full quote: "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.'" I was telling you that in the last round you were supposed to refute the argument I had, instead of ignoring it, blatantly lying (saying I never made the said argument), and instead saying I conceded. "I did not lie; I submitted a fact." That source was not fact. It was a different, but just as uncredible person answering a question on wiki-answers, and the answer didn't even have sources. Wiki-answers is an even worse source then wikipedia, because the person is not required to include proof, evidence, or sources in their answer. "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." I have argued that most babies will me defective because their irresponsible parents won't take proper care during their pregnancy. So yes most babies would end up with deformities, as their mothers wouldn't care what happened to them, as they didn't want to deal with the pregnancy in the first place. "it is better to live with deformities than to not live at all (and my opponent still has not argued against this)." Yes I have, I said that these kids would grow up without the special care they need in foster homes. Leading to more psychological issues as they grow older and no friends or family to help take care of them. Most likely leading them to insanity, suicide, homelessness, etc. It is true that regular foster kids can do well (true, but fairly rare) but, kids with these deformities don't have much if any chance. "We aren't throwing them out on the street; we are simply not rewarding their irresponsibility and teaching them responsibility at the same time." So basically your saying "I want to punish these women for wanting to get an abortion, so I say we shouldn't help them at all, and just hope that the baby comes out alright without the proper health care." "This is irrelevant. If the baby would not live to the age that it would be adopted, it does not apply to this debate." Yes it does, if an unborn baby would have been effected in anyway by abortion, then they do of course, apply to this debate. Them not being aborted early on because of the law, then not being taken care of during birth because of no financial aid, and then dieing painfully because not being taken care of, is worse ethically then them simply being aborted earlier on before they could feel pain. "If it's preventable, then abortion is certainly not the solution." Kids with cerebalpaulsy, often can't talk, walk, etc. You said we shouldn't give them any financial adi. You can't force a person to be pregnant, unless if you can at least help them financially so the baby is born as healthy as possible. That's unethical. "The poor family that gives birth to a baby does not end up paying most of the bills." They would if the amount of babies put up for adoption was increased by the large amount it would be increased by if abortions were no longer allowed. "Further, cost is irrelevant. Life is an unalienable right." Why do you keep on saying things are irrelevant, when they aren't? If people can't pay for healthcare and are forced to stay pregnant, then they can't pay to care for their unborn fetuses, and then the babies would be born with many more disease. This is a problem that making abortions illegal would cause, and a point to my argument. Just because it is a point to my argument and goes against yours, it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. "Irrelevant; this debate assumes that the baby is born and lives as an orphan." No it doesn't, you never said that in the first argument or made it a rule. "She argues that all unadopted babies will grow up to be criminals, which is not the case." Actually it is the case, proved in a study done: http://rawstory.com... "Kids in a foster care are three times more likely to become juvenile delinquents" "About 56 percent of girls placed in foster care become pregnant as teens" (supports my vicious cycle argument) "First, my opponent conceded this:" Please ignore this I made arguments, my opponent ignored them, I didn't concede, and I never excepted these rules anyways. "She has described the care of adopting families..." My opponent, once again, has blatantly lied. I said children in FOSTER care, not ADOPTIVE care are abused and neglected. "The choice of life or death is one's own. It is unethical to decide whether someone gets to live or not." What about women who are forced to die due to their pregnancies? They should have the right to chose to live or not, why do their unborn children, that can't even speak yet, take presidence over their right? I apologize, but I can't cover all of the arguments and my closing arguments within 8'000 characters. My closing comments are in the comments, since they are in fact comments :D.