Pro-Lifers Are Lost

---I assume my either opponent stopped reading once they saw the quoted sentence above or just didn't understand my intentions, because they misunderstood entirely what I was saying. "Detached from reality" has a different societal meaning than my opponent implies. We as humanity cannot fully determine what objective reality is. That's why there are so many disagreements over issues, why science searches for answers to make our understandings more objective. My opponent quotes "it is impossible for one's subjective reality to be defined as completely connected with reality" out of context. It is impossible because one cannot determine exactly what objective reality is. If my opponent claims that pro-lifers are out of sync with objective reality, then they must prove the objective reality of the situation and how the subjective reality of pro-lifers measures to it.--- This entire paragraph rests on one assumption, "We as humanity cannot fully determine what objective reality is." We cannot fully determine what objective reality is, and I don"t remember ever claiming we could. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be basing our decisions on the objective reality that actually determines outcomes. My argument is that a pro-lifers logic is derived from a detachment from reality, or a detachment from the objective reality that creates the problem in question. If your solutions are derived from a false reality, or a detachment from our objective reality, you will then have solutions created in a vacuum. They do not work as they do not match up with variables in the environment influencing the issue. ---"They must prove the objective reality of the situation and how the subjective reality of pro-lifers measures to it." --- The reality of this situation is simple. Abortion was created as a social band aid. Pro lifers now want to remove the band aid, and start from scratch. My question is, are you looking into a solution for the problems that will inevitably exist after you ban abortion? Have you considered the expanded social implications since it is no longer 1973. Have you considered that people may just go overseas to have this done? Again, realize the solution pro-lifers give is not a solution at all. You want to save babies, but only because the number is over 1,000,000. You are apparently content with 1,000 per year. Does that sound like a detachment problem? I think so. ---My opponent next offers his subjective opinion, plagued with ad hominem attacks, on the argument, supposing it to be objective. He subjectively claims that subjecting children to an underprivileged life is worse than murder. Unfortunately, other subjective realities exist.--- I never said anything about subjecting children to an underprivileged life. The point in bringing up parents not wanting their children, was to highlight the real issue, unwanted pregnancies. Pro-lifers tend to focus on the issue of abortion, and do not expend as much energy advocating for things like early childhood education or education reform. This entire paragraph was rhetoric. ---US Laws ban murder, while they do not ban "bringing children up in a bad home." The Declaration of Independence speaks of an unalienable right to life. The ten commandments condemn murder. My opponent claims that these subjective realities are all incorrect. In addition, children do not have to be brought up in the home of a mother who doesn't want them. Adoption is a viable and safer alternative to abortion [1]." Again, you being this paragraph with even more rhetoric. "My opponent claims that these subjective realities are all incorrect." I never said anything about the Declaration of Independence or the Ten Commandments. You wave the "murder flag" when it comes to abortion, but have nothing to say about the black markets for abortion that will undoubtedly open when a ban is put I place. You are not concerned with fixing the core problem, unwanted pregnancy, you merely wave the flag of pro-life to make yourself feel good about the place you are in, a place detached from reality. You then go further to say "Adoption is a viable and safer alternative." You obviously haven"t done much research on the subject. Foster care is no walk in the park. I would not condemn any child to that kind of life. Nobody is saying "murder" is the alternative. However, pro-lifers present solutions that would merely bring us back decades, and they continue on their march, increasingly detached from the absolute variables impacting the problem. ----My opponent also cites that pro-lifers are wrong because they protest. This, whether it actually makes them wrong or not, is inapplicable, as many pro-lifers do not protest. I have never protested. Furthermore, they have the right to free speech. A lot of the rest of my opponent's argument rests on ad hominem attacks and supposing pro-lifers to be wrong because they are, something he himself condemns.---- Everybody can say what they want. The point is this, if you are walking around protesting, holding signs or in your head, you are expending energy to fix a problem"right? I would assume that if you disagree with something, you will also take action to contribute to the solution. That expenditure of energy by pro-lifers is absolutely useless. You are not saving children, you are not ending abortion, and you are not accomplishing the goal you set out to achieve in the first place. So you tell me, if you set out to achieve a goal, and the strategy you use is completely counterproductive, would you not say you are detached from reality? I think you already agreed with this definition. Pro-lifers continue their selfish rampage across the globe, while resources could be redirected to really solve the problem. Do you think the men and women performing the abortions care enough to come up with a solution? Then it is on pro-lifers to really push a viable fix for this socially unacceptable problem. Unfortunately, since pro-lifers have decided to make this entire problem about abortion, we will never move forward to tackle the real problem. While you protest, children continue to die, and you have spent yet another day failing to walk the right path. ----Really, my opponent states, the problem is that babies will still die. Black Market abortions will happen. However, pro-lifers understand this. Over 1,000,000 babies died in the last year from abortion. How many died of back-alley abortions before Roe v. Wade? Roughly 1,000 per year [2]. 1,000 times as many babies die from legal abortion. If adoption is promoted more, this number may drop even further." It"s funny that you try to use such a skewed statistic. The 1,000 abortions per year are reported abortions. You have no way of knowing how many back alley abortions were performed each year. You also fail to account for the double loss of life. Many back alley abortions cause the mother to die due to infection or bleeding. It"s not a pretty way to go. However, you pro-lifers seem to think it"s a grand idea. This entire view is completely detached from reality. This is definitely not the way forward. Pro-lifers offer band aids that would merely create another social problem for us to fix. Regardless of what rhetoric you use to support your views, the entire argument you give is absolutely in support of my argument. ===Conclusion My opponent claims that pro-lifers are separated from reality. Unfortunately, he never presents an objective reality that they separate themselves from. He presents his subjective reality and claims it as fact. Pro-lifers are therefore not proven as "lost" or "detached from reality."=== Well, that sounds nice. Unfortunately, none of that is accurate. An objective reality does exist, and it determines the absolute variables we use to build perceptions. Some of these perceptions are naturally subjective and need to remain subjective. However, this is a social problem with absolute variables. We may never know exactly what those variables are. However, if we start implementing subjective solutions when the problem is based on an objective reality, our subjective analysis will clash with reality. The result is what you see today. We need to stop assuming our solution is the right solution because we think it matches up with some moral code we have established for ourselves. If we really want to fix this problem, I guarantee it does not come on the back of legislation to ban abortion. This entire view is detached from the reality that a real solution involved removing our children from situations where unwanted pregnancy can occur. We need to be accountable for our children and reduce the need for such services. Prohibition has never solved anything. All prohibition does is create black markets for the product or service, and then superficially raises the value of said service to such proportions that new social problems emerge. Completely lost in their own logic, and detached from the reality they try to perceive, no solution pro-lifers will generate can fix this issue.