Abortion

Con has subconsciously just confirmed everything I just said in the rebuttal. I will be addressing why. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " Japan bombings having nothing to do with the abortion debate. I think bombing Japan was moral and saved lives." You think causing the deaths of 60,000 to 70,000 Japanese people was moral. Good. You have just confirmed to me that you believe you can kill an innocent civilian for the greater good. I completely win this point. My whole rebuttals was just dedicated to proving that abortion is a greater benefit. "You say 69% of woman who get abortions don't have money. That, I'll admit, is true, or just about true. But why does not having money justify killing? " Alright, you now apply the morality(killing one person is one too much) logic again. How come your logic does not pull through on the civilian casualties on the bombing of Japan? How come your logic does not pull through on the civilian casualties on the War on Terror? How come your logic does not pull through on German casualties in WW2? How come your logic does not pull through on the soldiers that died on our side as well? The answer is utilitarianism. We were committing these acts, because it was the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. The same applies to Abortion. I am simply stating that abortion is the greatest benefit for a parent who is under the poverty line, single, and financially insufficient. This leads to me to your other point. You concede to the idea that adoption is not ideal. Listen, if there was a government program that made adoption cheaper; I would completely support that program. But, it is not. You than argue that one can simply apply for charity. Remember when I asked you to give some evidence stating that this was a simple process. If this was a simple process, than how come the poverty rates haven't declined as rapidly as they should. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "18% of woman who get abortions are under 20. Why have sex under 20?" I agree with your point to an extent. I believe that teenagers should be allowed to practice safe sex. Just because I am pro-choice does not mean I support government programs that degrade the chances of an individual being put in those certain circumstances. Remember that it is usually educated and financially sufficient people that do not acquire abortions. We have to improve the lives of those people that are below the poverty wage. We have to make sure they have the same opportunities as we do. #FEELTHEBERN My opponent gives choices on basically depressing choices. Just look at them. a. Little food, food stamps, or charity food. b. No food cause your dead. Listen, you need to add a lot more to A. If I picked A, I would inflict: Indicates that children from single-parent families live less healthy lives. -Children growing up with one parent have a higher probability of dropping out of school. -Trouble keeping jobs as young adults. -Mother-only families are more likely to be poor because of the lower earning capacity of women, -The median annual income for female-headed households with children under six years old is roughly one-fourth that of two-parent families. -Approximately 53 percent of single mothers are not in the work force because they are unable to find affordable, quality, child care - The majority of these mothers have no high school diploma, leaving them with few job opportunities or jobs that pay only the minimum wage. -Parents with two or more children often have little money left after paying taxes and child care. -Single parents experience a variety of stressors related to poverty (i.e., financial, emotional, social). -Financial strain is one of the strongest predictors of depression in single parents. The greater benefit is for the woman to live out her life, and try to make herself financially acceptable for a child. Let me represent my own choice for Con. Would you launch a bomb on a military camp full of panzer tanks that would take out 80%(unrealistic) of German tanks? If you do, there is an innocent man who is a janitor there. He probably has a family that will miss him. Either way, you approve of bombing Japan. "You keep repeating the same thing about money, ice already said charities, goverment assistance, or adoption." I asked you a question about this, but you prove unfailingly to never answer it. Why is it that poverty has not gone down if it is so easy to file for government assistance? You did not answer this question. Answering it next case is unfair, because I have no other opportunity to respond to it. Why Pro wins. This debate was about the benefits, harms, and morality of Abortion. All my opponent could do was argue morality. But, I have argued that the benefits outweigh the harms when it comes to abortion. I have argued that there are more harms than benefits when it comes to not acquiring an abortion. I have proved that it is a utilitarian good, because of the proof that the benefits outweigh the harms. My opponent has in fact conceded to the fact that the majority of people acquiring abortions have a hard life with financial burden. He has conceded to the point that a kid will actually cause more financial burden in his choice selection. Pro has been able to prove not just that Abortion is beneficial, but also a utilitarian good.