Then why don't we kill all the poor?  Or all the incompetent?  Or all those who might suffer?  Instead of donating money to third-world countries, why don't we get them out of the way of progress?  Don't you see what you're saying?  You couldn't possibly because you're fixated on being thought of as "progressive" or "modern".  We don't know what people in poor situations will do because they've done great things and terrible things.  Just as many people who are rich, like celebrities, do bad things, like kill, steal, and destroy--such is the nature of man, I'm afraid.  If we arbitrarily decide who is good enough and who's not before they're even born, what is the limit?  I say that limit is to let the individual decide whether he or she (themselves) wants to live, not someone else.

Let me give you an example: let's say I went back in time, say around 1925.  If I were to tell all the Jews in Austria that they were going to suffer immensely at the hands of a cruel dictator, what would they say?  That may not be.  They wouldn't all go kill themselves!

You keep stating that abortion is a bad solution but that prohibiting abortion is no better because of the problems it would cause.  In essence, you cite that abortion is a solution to a lack of responsibility, but I contend that that irresponsibility was exacerbated by the same "logic" that created abortion in the first place.  Do you claim that the world before abortion was a messy place where children only saw suffering?  I don't see that, and quite frankly, I don't think most reasonable people see that either, except to justify their argument.  Children will be abused regardless of
abortion: any decrease of which I doubt the existence does not justify our destroying life.  But back to my example, that's like saying to
the Jews before the Holocaust, "Well, you're gonna suffer anyway, so how about we shoot you now and get it over with?"  Would the Jews agree with such a demand?  No! 

If we arbitrarily decide who can and cannot live, then we set ourselves up for society run on some idea of perfection, by a fallible creature, mankind.  Everyone, when created, should have the right to experience life before someone else decides for them, even if that someone else decided that they live, because by nature all man is created by someone or something else, depending on what you believe.  If I can
arbitrarily decide what lives and dies while in the womb, why not outside the womb?  Why can I not kill someone I don't believe deserves to live, even if they are a "parasite" to society?  That's because each of us depends on that society, so that destroying life would only serve to condemn ourselves.

I don't believe in abortion, and I don't believe in the death penalty, because things change.  Life is not static suffering, unless we let it become just that.  Many of those children in third-world countries have far better outlooks on life than children in the United States.  We have gotten too familiar with some sort of "bed of roses" mentality, where the statistics dictate who will do what and when, and anyone not in the certian margins will have terrible lives exclusively.

As I said, life is not suffering, unless you're Buddhist, in which case, whatever; but it's not.  Take it from someone who has had everything from birth handed to him yet wanted to kill himself.  You can't predict what struggles people will have, and claiming that you have some sort of system to predict either way what will happen is, quite frankly, blowing hot air into your argument.

You actually surprised me with your first remark in this debate, and for that, I thank you.  I need a surprise every now and then.  But as for this debate, this post is the last in this argument for my side.  If I cannot convince you that an absolute standard of upholding life no matter what might happen, I don't feel I've lost because I've made a declaration as to where I stand.  Ask the Jensens.  Ask them if they thought, had their mother known she would have cancer twice and experience tremendous suffering, that she would take her own life.  I'm fairly sure she wouldn't have.  I'm sure her family alone was enough to compel to keep on living.

Life will never be ideal, but that doesn't mean we should avoid it.