This house supports abortion

Thanks for a great response, with my final post I will refute your statements and reinforce my own position. On my first point I brought up issues involving the family (people associated with the child). The idea of this argument was the reiterate the importance of choice. I brought up financial problems, later life work problems, unsafe parents/situation and brought up some material about adoptions. Now I agree with your analysis in that this point depends on the second point however that does not mean we show give it now time or importance. I asked how it was moral to force someone to take on all these costs and problems if they do not want it. In stead of replying to that you claimed that I didn't cite sources (something you seem to believe is quite important.) But in you asking for sources you have misinterpreted the argument. It was simply using logic to determine likely outcomes for a family who did not want a child. However if you want some articles I'll put some in. The department of agriculture did a study which followed the expenses of raising a child (Up until the age of 16) -http://time.com.... The result was $233,610 USD which in AUD is currently $304,721 (which only counts costs associated with the child and not anything else). For reference, the average full time annual earnings for someone living in NSW is $80,132 -https://www.livingin-australia.com.... I also brought up disadvantages in later working life. The guardian posted an article detailing several stats which show discrimination because of the fact they had to go on maternity leave. -https://www.theguardian.com.... Also a long document (I haven't read all of it) details several key arguments which reinforce my statements, I encourage you to look through the surveys and statistics they provide as well as some of the logical reasoning because they outline my point perfectly. -https://www.equalityhumanrights.com.... I brought up the negative impact that unsafe households have on children and here is an article from the daily mail which cites studies which clearly state there is a profound affect on children being in violent families -http://www.dailymail.co.uk.... Finally a pro-adoption page posted an opinion piece about why adoption and abortion are not related and should not be used as alternatives to the other. -http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com.... Now that i've reinforced my logical claims in my first point I now want to point out what my opponent said and why it was wrong. The opposition has stated a belief and has used no facts, analysis, logic or basic reasoning to why you, the readers should take on his point of view. All he stated was "I believe that the birth parent should under no circumstances be able to put her rights above her child's, even if this means the parent has to go through things such as depression." That statement proves nothing and just says a belief. Sure, thats what he believes but it's no reason why women should have this option of abortion taken away from them. He has failed to mention why the unborn child's life is more important to the already alive women who's life could be ruined because she did not want to have a child but her country decided that she legally has to. In contrast my point uses logic and now articles, facts and statistics to why the women involved should be allowed to prioritize herself. My opponent also thinks the first point is irrelevant in light of the second point however I disagree with this. Step through this with me. The first point gives good reasons to why a potential parent should be given a choice based on the fact that this is a life changing event that some do not want forced onto them. That was the purpose of the first point. The second point's purpose was to illustrate the idea that it is moral to have an abortion. My opponent claims that the first point is meaningless however what point is there to proving that an abortion is moral if I do not prove that there are reasons why people need it to be moral. The debate isn't, this house thinks abortions are moral, it is about the whole thing and therefore dismissing the first point makes no sense as there needs to be a purpose to abortion. People don't do it because it's fun. Now onto the second point. My opponent uses a very common attack against pro-abortion supporters. "If you don't think human life exists at fertilization, please tell me where you think it begins and why." This is a great question and is the downfall of many people who are pro-abortion supporters because they are unsure how to respond to this. I will not deny this fact. You posted two sources and it is commonly held fact and I accept that. If you examine my point I argue against the principle of a foetus not being a person. Not a human. Undeniably human life starts at fertilization and I'm sorry for confusing you if you think that was my argument. Harkening back to my analysis I said that there are two components to being human. 1. Being part of the homo sapiens species and 2. Being a person. I never once refuted the first statement which is what you sought to prove with science. You did directly address my philosophical side of the argument by saying you don't believe in it. "I don't agree with Peter Singers theory.". To be fair you did provide to analogies to where the theory would also apply but you didn't provide any reasons to why these scenarios disprove the theory. In fact, peter signer actually mentions these group that fall under his theory and he supports the idea that they are not a person in that state. Now this may be extreme however the definition I have provided explains and supports an idea about what is a person. My opponent has provided no alternative, no answer and no reason why the specific examples he brought up disprove the theory. (I'll leave a link to a small summary of Peter Singer's theory because he probably explains it a lot better than I do) -https://www.utilitarian.net... I want to end my part of a debate with a strong closing. Women aren't going out there to get an abortion for the sole purpose to kill a child, there is a large decision making process. Consent is important, and when you take away the ability to consent then you are taking away an important function which gives you a say in how you live your life. I do not advocate for people to always get abortions, I only advocate for the ability to consent about what they do once they are in this situation. If they wish to have a child, great, in fact, I prefer it to abortions. I want less abortions, and we achieve that through better education systems that aren't just based about complete abstinence, we achieve that through cheaper contraception methods, we do not achieve that by forcing women into a situation they do not want to be in that can potentially dramatically change their lives for the worse. I sought to prove that abortions were moral and important but they are by far a last resort. More methods need to be put in place to prevent this situation from occurring at all. Currently, the reality is that people need this service, people want this service and by taking it away we take away their ability to choose. People are allowed to disagree with things, but as it is with everything you buy into it. It's a free market, if you do not agree with abortions, do not get one, simple as that. But don't believe for one moment that your ideas, your believes give you the right to take away someone else right to choose. Finally, to my opponent and I look forward to your response and I thank you for what has been a good debate.