Resolved: The United States should value the pro-life stance above the pro-choice stance.

I affirm. I think I mostly agree with what my opponent says about "pro-life" and "pro-choice" between his/her definitions and contentions. I think I defined both terms reasonably in my Round 2 speech, and I think that both are pretty self-explanatory. In layperson's terms, pro-life people think that an unborn child should be able to live life for herself, whereas pro-choice people believe that a woman should choose whether or not the unborn child can experience the same opportunities that the woman herself has been able to enjoy. Before I jump into refutations, I would like to extend one observation through my case that will be fundamental to the rest of the round. I do not have to argue that abortions should not be legal. I do not have to argue that the pro-choice side does not have benefits. All I must argue is that the benefits of encouraging women not to have an abortion outweigh the costs. The resolution says that we VALUE pro-life over pro-choice, not that they are mutually exclusive. My opponent has the opposite burden. This debate is NOT "Resolved: Abortion should be legal in the U.S." The debate is NOT "Resolved: Roe v. Wade should be overturned." This is not a debate JUST about the legality of abortion, and I would like my opponent not to approach it in that manner. My opponent's first contention regards the assertion that women should not be forced into having an abortion. I have a few responses. First, I don’t know if this contention is valid because there is no evidence or statistics that show: A) whether or not back-alley abortions are actually more dangerous than legal abortions, B) that the clinic is run by doctors who know what they’re doing, or C) that women who were denied abortion would immediately refer to back-alley abortions. For the second (part B) burden of proof, cross-apply my 4th contention, where I talk about how many of these doctors are motivated by profit and greed as opposed to wisdom and awareness. Thus, I don’t know if the first part of my opponent’s contention is valid. My second response to this argument is that there is a difference between coercing and encouraging a woman one way or the other about an abortion. coerce - to persuade someone by force or threats encourage - give support to someone to do something (both definitions from Dictionary.com) A lot of my opponent’s first contention is untopical. I agree that abortions should remain legal, I agree that women can still have another child, and I agree that women can ask questions. But these are not unique reasons to value the pro-choice stance over the pro-life stance. The fact of the matter is that we can still give women their choice, but what we need to VALUE (prioritize) above that is making sure that women make the RIGHT choice: either taking care of the child themselves or passing on the child to a family who could accept it. There are a few glaring holes with my opponent’s 2nd contention that I will now address. My opponent first (literally) says that most of the guilt and stress after an abortion comes from pressure and influences. First, he/she has NO evidence for that claim whatsoever. My opponent’s attribution to external influences is no more valid than my attribution of guilt and stress to the fact that abortion is the end of a human child. Make my opponent bring up an abundance of evidence showing that guilt and stress are spawned as a result of external influences. Second, remember that I clearly draw the line between “encourage” (which is the word that is used in my Pro plan for the resolution) and “coerce” (which is the word referenced by my opponent in his/her first contention). By affirming the resolution, there will not really be “external pressure” on a woman, because we would gently encourage the woman to save the life of a human child by offering her kind words and a small tax incentive, which are parts of my plan that have not yet been responded to in this debate. Third, the guilt and stress are guilt and stress, respectively. My 2nd contention still stands in today’s round, because I discuss how the pro-life stance is more psychologically sound. It doesn’t necessarily matter where the guilt and stress are coming from; the fact of the matter is that women who abort a child are 154% more likely to commit suicide. “Do unto others.” It’s likely that these increased risks of suicide are a direct result of putting an unborn child to death. My opponent brings up a statistic that says that only 5-30% of women report negative feelings. I would like to cross-apply my statistics: women who abort are 154% more likely to commit suicide, 52% more likely to have partners in regret, 45% more likely to have partners in sadness, and 26% more likely to have partners in depression. My opponent dismisses huge numbers like these as “sensationalizing” and “trying to make numbers sound larger”. My statistics are just as valid as my opponent’s and make more sense. 5% of women reporting negative feelings after having an abortion means that for every 20 aborting women, only 1 of them is sad. That is inconsistent with our intuition. My last response to this argument is that 5 - 30% is still more than zero percent! We can stop sending women into “regret”, “anxiety”, “guilt”, and “depression”, among other negative feelings, if we prioritize the right to life over the freedom to make one decision! I would like judges to refer back to the framework for this debate of net benefits for American society. Which side do you believe, judge, sends more women into dissatisfaction and regret? The answer is the Con’s. I would like to respond to my opponent’s 3rd contention by saying that it doesn’t necessarily matter where the money is coming from; the fact of the matter is that it is being used for greed. Abortion entrepreneurs are MORE interested in making money than they are in assisting their clients. This is for exactly the reason that my opponent stated: a lot of abortion clinics are NOT sponsored by the government, so they don’t have to operate under particular regulations. At least Planned Parenthood has some kind of government oversight, but the vast majority of the abortion industry is from companies who don’t care about others. But there is a problem with Planned Parenthood too! It gets federal subsidies, which are bad for taxpayers and bad for the economy. My opponent’s final contention is where his/her and my sides most directly come into clash. He/she basically makes a defensive argument that says that unborn fetuses are not entitled to the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact of the matter is that the definition of “life”, whether or not you believe a bunch of biased scientific dictionaries, is not really the biggest issue in today’s debate. One of the biggest issues is that whether the unborn fetus is deserving of the same opportunities that the woman has enjoyed all throughout her life. In America, we are bounded by equality of opportunity. Valuing one woman’s right to choose one time is a violation of one child’s right to choose infinitely many times. It is fine for my opponent to define ‘life’ as beginning at birth; the argument still stands that for a fair debate, we cannot JUST analyze the present. We have to weigh the impacts of the future. In the FUTURE, the fetus will grow into an entity that can think, feel, and be aware of its environment. I would like to extend my quote from philosopher John Mearsheimer, which says that “aborting an unborn fetus is equivalent to putting an innocent person to the death penalty”. Just in case you are not completely committed to my opponent’s biased definition of “life”, I would like to extend mine throughout the round (the one that I defined in my 1st contention): the existence of a unique human being or animal. My opponent states that calling an unborn fetus a human being is “biased” or “ignorant”; I find these tags offensive and do not see a reason to prefer those definitions. Thus, I affirm.