Pro-Lifers Are Lost

Thanks for the argument, pro. To keep myself from quoting my opponent's entire argument in mine, I'm going to assign each non-quotes paragraph of my opponent's a number and rebut them. Rebuttals:1) This is an important point. My opponent here agrees objective reality cannot be fully ascertained. 2) I would like to say that this is NOT a debate about whether abortion is correct or morally permissible. This is NOT a debate over whether abortion should be legalized. This debate concerns whether pro-life advocates are detached from reality. As I claimed before, reality is objective, but cannot be objectively ascertained. There are facts of a situation. 1,000,000 babies die per year due to abortion. Less babies die if it is outlawed. These are the facts we have right now. Anything else is speculation. 3 & 4) Outlawing normal murder is the same. Sure, people are still going to murder, but far less often than if it was legal. Heroin is illegal, and people still traffic it on the Black Market, but if legalized, it would damage society far more. Pro-lifers are not content with Black Market abortions and the like, but the less babies that die, the better. The real debate concerns whether more murder or more of possibly subjecting children to bad homes and unfit parents is worse. This answer seems obvious to me, but I cannot prove that this answer is objective. Different sides take their ideas of subjective reality. Pro-Lifers believe that the less babies that die, the better society will be. I don't know how this demonstrates a detachment from reality, as the objective reality of the situation is unascertainable. 5) Sex is a biological act intended to produce children. When you have sex, you're going to have kids. Although some women are raped, the vast majority of abortions occur to parents who just didn't want to get pregnant. Why should we punish a baby for his parents' mistake? My opponent wants to teach children, but abortion is just giving them a way out of a lesson on responsibility. This rebuttal actually has no relevance to the debate about "detachment."6) Though my opponent didn't specifically reference the Declaration or the Ten Commandments, these are two documents that claim to contain objective truth that condemn abortion. The Declaration references life as an "unalienable right", while the Ten Commandments condemns murder.7) Although Black Markets will possibly open, this cannot be proven, and therefore is not reality. Whether or not pro-lifers accept that Black Markets will open, this does not matter in regards to reality, as the opening of Black Markets is not reality. Pro-lifers cannot detach themselves from a nonexistant reality. My opponent also assumes that making abortion illegal means that only abortion in clinics would be illegal. Police would need to take measures to locate and shut down all Black Market abortion operations. 8) My opponent claims that because Foster Care sometimes creates bad situations, it is worse than abortion (I know a few adopted children in loving, caring homes). He claims nobody is claiming murder is the other option, but has accepted for the entire debate, or at least failed to rebut, that abortion is murder, and that abortion is the other option. My opponent claims that pro-lifers are detached from "absolute variables." The phrase "absolute variable" is an oxymoron. If something is absolute, it cannot vary, and vice-versa. This paragraph proves nothing other than my opponent"s subjective opinion. 9 & 10) I actually mostly agree here. Protesting does not seem to be accomplishing much for those that protest, at least in my subjective opinion. However, I do not protest, and I am pro-life. Due to the general nature of the resolution, this negates my opponent's point about the futility of protest. 11) This argument is purely ad-hominem and contains no substance. Pro-lifers are trying to fix the problem of abortion. In addition, many attempt to encourage abstinence (and some contraception) in schools [1], which solve my opponent's qualms with no assesment by pro-lifers of the "real problem." 12) My opponent needs to prove that abortion is objectively impossible to be the problem, which he continues to fail to do. he continues to assert that there is a "right path" but fails to demonstrate why this path is right. As I stated before, the subjective opinions of pro-lifers cannot be proven as impossible to be objective reality. There is no way to say they are detached from reality. 13) It is highly unlikely that abortions were over 1000 times higher than reported, and my opponent is not able to offer objective statistics, as I have. 14) Even "safe abortions" can cause loss of life [2]. Pro-lifers intend to exterminate all abortion, not just legal abortion. 15) I ask my opponent for objective proof and not conjecture, that another problem would be created, as well as objective proof that the loss of life would be greater if abortion was illegal. 16) I fully support that an objective reality exists. My opponent has not given proof as to how we can ascertain it without a doubt concerning abortion. His burden remains unfufilled. He again uses the term "absolute variables", which is an oxymoron. This social problem indeed has variables, which makes it a subjective issue. These variables cannot be absolute or they no longer would be variables. My opponent admits that we cannot know what these variables are. I believe this is essentially a concession of the debate, but I'll leave it up to voters, as often debaters see things that aren't there due to bias. 17) This is purely subjective. 18) My opponent here admits abortion is a problem! He may believe the solution is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but so do many pro-lifers. "Pro-Life" is simply a movement that disagrees with abortion. Any other beliefs or practices are not typical of every member of the pro-life movement. Therefore, since my opponent disagrees with the fundamental idea of abortion, and claims it is a problem, he is a "pro-lifer" himself, albeit one with a very nuanced opinion about abortion legalization. Conclusion My opponent has a burden too high to be proven. My opponent cannot prove objectively that pro-lifers are detached from objective reality, as he cannot ascertain what the objective reality of the situation is. My opponent disagrees with the actions of various pro-lifers rather than their beliefs. However, my opponent cannot prove that all pro-lifers perform these acts, nor can he prove these acts are objectively incorrect (doing so would require proving that no protest ever had any effect on abortion whatsoever). My opponent has asserted abortion is a problem, which is the only belief all pro-lifers hold. His subjective reality matches theirs. As I have stated before, as most of objective reality is unknown, only those with diseases can be proven as detached from reality. Sources [1]http://teen-aid.org... [2]http://www.livestrong.com...