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

---Counter Rebuttal 1, Diseases--- My opponent says that the diseases he mentions are only some of the diseases in play. I knew that when I pointed out the odds of acquiring Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff. Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff really, really suck[1][2], and so I wanted to show that even though in this scenario there is a .01% chance that the baby will have diseases/defects, there is not a .01% chance that Tay-Sachs or Sandhoff will be among these. ---Counter Rebuttal 2, Expenses--- My opponent starts by saying I stated that Amanda could afford birth but not abortion. I did not say that, I said, "... Amanda can afford an abortion, but not the cost of giving birth." I encourage voters to go back a minute and check the statement, found in the beginning of my section titled 'Expenses'. Next he asks how could Amanda be expected to find a pro-life agency given how disadvantaged she is. Frankly, Amanda needs to get in contact with them herself. She could use public computers at the library to look up some organizations, then use a public telephone if she has to. Next he says that they probably wouldn't be able to handle the costs of clean water, food, and regular household items. However providing these necessary items is one of the main operations of the pro-life groups. Furthermore, if Amanda wants, an adoption agency[3] could take the baby off her hands, and provide the necessary materials. ---Counter Rebuttal 3, Rareness of Scenario--- My opponent says he fails to see how may statement in regards to the rarity of this situation is relevant. It is relevant because the pro-life organizations wouldn't have to worry about setting any financially harmful precedents in the act of assisting in paying her surgeries' costs. I stated this in my previous round of arguments, under section 'Expenses'. ---Rebuttal 1, 'Failed to Mention'--- Next my opponent adds new things to the scenario halfway through the debate. I won't tell voters how to vote based on this, but I would ask that they take it as one of the things to be evaluated before casting a vote. For the voters who don't care that he added things to his scenario in Round 3, I will provide reasons why this isn't a deciding factor. As I stated earlier, organizations that are pro-life should logically think that life should be put before everything else, including money. If that were the case, they'd be willing to pay for these surgeries, no matter the cost, as long as it helps save life. And assuming one charity or organization cannot pay the cost on its own, there are quite a few pro-life charities out there[4][5] that would doubtless pitch in. ---Counter Rebuttal 3, Numbers--- My opponent says I've failed to realize that the baby will die 999 times out of 1,000. I have not, that's actually why I'm Con, because the Pro position allows for the baby to die 1,000 times out of 1,000, whereas the Con position allows for better odds of life. As for his statement about Amanda in this section, I've already made a statement in regards to that, addressing the 'lesser evil'. I understand my opponent has made a rebuttal to that idea, which I will get to later. Next my opponent makes a statement in regards to the number 1,000. He says its the number needed for life. Then he goes onto say that if Amanda had to do this 1,000 times, she'd end up losing 3,000 years of her life(the proper math would actually have it at 30,000). I think this should be disregarded by readers and voters because this will not happen to Amanda 1,000 times. ---Counter Rebuttal 4, Conditions--- Next my opponent makes mention of the various hardships the baby will face, if it should live. One of the major points brought up is that conditions would be very poor for raising the baby, and that Amanda would likely be unable to raise the baby properly. Certainly Amanda's income and situation would provide little help to the raising of the baby, but what about adoption? She could give the child away to an adoption agency that could care for the baby appropriately. If she's physically able to care for the baby, she can always receive financial aid from a pro-life organization. ---Counter Rebuttal 5, Killing Amanda?--- My opponent says that through allowing the birth of the child, Amanda is being killed, through virtue of the fact that she is losing 30 years of her life. This is a necessary sacrifice however, in order to provide the best chance for as much life as possible for the baby. Next he says that the baby, should it live, will not live longer than Amanda, due to the diseases it has. If he is referring to Tay-Sachs or Sandhoff, I've already shown that's not a guarantee. If he is referring to other unnamed diseases in play in the scenario, I would ask that voters refer back to his stated scenario in Round 2. Nowhere does it say that the baby's guaranteed diseases will shorten the baby's life. ---Counter Rebuttal 6, Burning House--- My house example was intended to reinforce my idea of why abortion should be treated as killing. It does not directly apply to the rebuttal put up against it, which is coming from the specific scenario for this debate. But one other thing to be said is that it is OK to burn down a defective house because it is inanimate, unlike babies. ---Counter Rebuttal 7, My Main Argument--- My opponents main reason here against my position is that Amanda's life will go on much more efficiently than if she had a birth. Amanda will not die under any circumstances however, and her baby's odds against dying can be increased if she makes a sacrifice that does not involve death. Next he says it isn't immoral to make an assumption that the baby's life would be bad, if we see what kind of a life it would have. While we can assume the life will be bad by the standards of ordinary people, how do we know that the baby will be content with its lot in life. To assume that the baby wouldn't be happy with its life is illogical, because there are people out in the world with various disabilities who are happy with their life. ---Rebuttal 8, Tay-Sachs Odds--- My opponent states here that the baby has a 1 in 4 chance of getting a fatal disease that will kill it within the early stages of life. This fact does not way in favor of Pro however. If there's a majority chance that the baby will not have the disease, then the decision should point overwhelmingly in the direction of non-abortion, in regards to the odds of the baby having Tay-Sachs, seeing as there's a better chance of the baby not having Tay-Sachs. ---Counter Rebuttal 9, Lesser Evil--- My opponent counters my idea that Amanda's degradation is the lesser evil in comparison to the death of the baby with a possible outcome, in which the baby dies and Amanda loses thirty years of her life. He insinuates that this is the worse evil, and therein also insinuates that his course is the lesser evil. However, Amanda's degradation of quality of life is always the lesser evil, due to the good it has the ability to achieve. It will always be justified to risk this, because of the gain of the baby's life that is possible. ---Counter Rebuttal 10, Odds of Fetus's Life--- My opponent says that the fetus in this situation is not guaranteed to have a life, and therefore its termination shouldn't be considered killing, and it shouldn't be avoided. This shouldn't allow for termination however, as under Con the baby has a greater chance of life than under the Pro side. If chance is what factors into termination of the fetus, and if the chances are better under Con, then we see that termination is not warranted. To my opponent: I don't care if you refute things in Round 4. Sources: [1] http://www.pregnancy-info.net... [2] http://www.med.cam.ac.uk... [3] http://www.americanadoptions.com... [4] http://www.nyscatholic.org... [5] http://www.simplecatholicliving.com...