Abortion

It seems my opponent believes that presenting made up statistics is somehow a rebuttal to the truth. I will explain... In response to my claim that 1.2 million more unwanted children will be born per year (an estimate based on the amount of legal abortions reported in 2007 in the US) he claims these extra births would somehow be a boon to the economy. He cites his own "quick and easy 'facts'" as his rebuttal. I will refute each of these "quick and easy facts" one by one. "if we were too Illegalize abortion you will find that their is MORE taxpayers" -Babies don't pay taxes. "MORE people to buy products in the U.S" -Babies don't buy anything. "MORE people in the work force and AND more people to enlist in the military" -Babies can't work, and though some may consider 17 year olds their "baby", babies can't enlist in the military. "In fact Abortions actually hurt the United States economy in the state of Illinois alone it costs the tax payers $1 million each year." -Though I would like to see that measly estimate ($1 million is not a lot of money when considering the alternatives; I will explain), because Illinois was mentioned, let's do a quick study on Illinois... -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...) 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 – 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. My opponent admits that I am right about the burden illegalizing abortion would be on the adoption industry. He then claims that the system will "correct itself", and the result will be a boon to the economy. The statistics I provided above suggest otherwise. In fact the statistics imply there would be a vicious circle of children in foster care, homelessness, and even crime (http://www.fightcrime.org...). My opponent claims that the right to life is more important to a child who is, as I suggested, doomed to live in these institutions. -7.6% vs 3.1% adoptees vs. non-adoptees are likely to attempt suicide -16.9% vs 8.2% adoptees vs. non-adoptess were likely to have received psychological and/or emotional counseling -Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...) I believe many of those who have actually suffered through living in these institutions would disagree with my opponent. 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? My opponent does not address this. My opponent says he does not see how illegalizing abortion would affect the psychiatric needs of these women and girls. Well, most health insurance does not cover mental health. Mental health already costs the US $150 billion annually. (http://www.apa.org...) My opponent claims that he would rather be born than aborted as the result of rape or incest. I argue that my opponent cannot possibly fathom the mental effects these children suffer, and given the suicide statistics for adoption quoted above, the suicide rates related to depression, and the depression that would occur when finding out you are the child of a rapist, or that your mother is also your sister- I am sure none of us, unless we have suffered through this, can possibly say it is better to be born. My opponent admits illegal abortion rates would go up, and then expects us all to assume (without reason) that the rates will eventually go down. 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 (http://www.womensenews.org...). My opponent claims that abortion is an infringement upon the unborn's "right to life". 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. According to medicine, an embryo is not a developed human being (references in R1). Asking whether or not we would have wanted to be aborted does not matter because 1 out of 3 of our mothers have had or will have an abortion by age 45 (http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...). The question is spiritual, and not scientific- at which point does the human soul enter the human body. Would I have been me had I been born rather than have previously been aborted? I would argue yes- I would still be me whether I was aborted during the conception in which I was actually born and born later, or if I had been born previously. 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. Thank you.