Abortion

My worthy opponent first I must appreciate your point of view and how you used emotion as an instrument of your debate at many places like this one "Dup-lup, duup-luup, duuup-luuup,duuuup" That"s the sound of a small heart going out. This particular one was aborted by its mother."[Quote by my worthy opponent] Unlike your side I will base all my arguments on hard facts and at the end mention the sources of Data and argument in a bibliography. And the same is expected from you. Abortion. First of all abortion is a necessity of any modern society and its first records date back as far as Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE. Though the methods have changed a lot since then. Its legality can depend on specific conditions such as incest, rape, fetal defects, sex-selective abortion, socioeconomic factors or the mother's health being at risk. I believe we have no dissimilarity over an abortion done due to incest, rape, fetal defects or mother"s health being at risk. And I state clearly that I am against "sex-selective abortion" too. So I will move straight to socioeconomic factors which is considered as heartless by my worthy opponent. On the ground that the child born could be left at a orphanage or could be kept up for adoption. Rather than aborting it. I ask you a very simple question if you were given with an opportunity of saving either a seed or a tree. Which one will you save ? Of course a tree it will be ! I beg your pardon if you differ. My point is in 2011, 6.9 million children under five died, out of which 2.6 million deaths of children were due to mal nourishment. 135 million births took place in the fiscal year 2011 that is almost for every 20 children born 1 died. Almost 48 million abortions took place. That is we saved 2 million four hundred thousand who were already born by opting for abortion. Abortion is a bad thing I agree completely my with my worthy opponent but right now we must look for the greater good. First we must take care of the children who are already born there is no point to a bring a child into this world and make him suffer. "That doctor that was in collage for 7 years to get his masters degree, who helped the countless patients that entrusted him with their lives, that same doctor that took the Hippocratic Oath to never hurt or kill a human being, is not injecting your side with poison to destroy a human life. The Oath states, and I quote, "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice". Doesn"t that say "I will never hurt somebody"?" [Quote by my worthy opponent]. Sometimes abortions have to be made due to risk to the mother"s life similarly socioeconomic abortions have to be made to save the life of children who are already born. I ask you will it be fair for 2 million+ children to suffer and die who are already in this world ? So that we can bring new life. The amount of resources spend on new born can be easily diverted to save the life of these innocent 2 million. With 9.9 million women in 1988 looking to adopt, there is never a word for an "unwanted child".[Quote by my worthy opponent]. First of all a citation from 1988 is very old and secondly upon doing some research upon it I found out 9.9 million people considered adoption out of which 31% really adopted i.e 3069000 people adopted which is way less than the 2 million innocent deaths. Abortion is a necessary evil. We must first protect what we already have. There is no point crowding when we do not have sufficient resources to offer. I hope I have made my point clear. And lastly I would like to beg your pardon if any errors have crept into my argument as the details mentions here are correct to the best of my knowledge. Bibliography: Mother of all: GOOGLE http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.acf.hhs.gov... http://www.worldometers.info... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Some data had to be manually calculated by me. Regards , Encantado