Pro-Lifers Are Lost

I will reference a few of your points in the same manner. I will then provide a closing statement. 1) I never said anything about our ability to fully ascertain the objective world. You will never fully understand the objective reality that creates our subjective reality. So, again, for the second time, I am not sure why you keep referencing this. 2) Your point here is fairly easy to understand. You would rather 1,000 babies die per year than 1,000,000. However, you fail to talk about the fact that it's not the 70's and I am sure more people would work around the law. If you don't think so, just look at all the current laws we have in place, and how many people break them on a daily basis. You would rather dump another social problem on law enforcement. That would be such a nightmare, and the fact that you believe it's a better alternative supports my point, you are detached from reality. We will come back to this later on. 3&4) Your attitude is , "Hey 1,000 is better than 1,000,000" which is really disturbing to me. You then go further to cite adoption once again. You fail to realize that some of these children will fail to end up in foster care. They will die soon before any DCF worker could get to them. This entire solution is a bomb waiting to go off. Let me say this again, pro-lifers continue to support a solution that would create more havoc in society than the problem itself. If they could just refocus on the root causes of this problem, the objective reality we cannot fully ascertain will support the correct answer, as absolute variables within the environment determine everything. Brings me to my next point. You said something about absolute variables. I am going to quote you here, "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." What definition of absolute are you using? I am not sure you really understand what you said here. Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative. I am not sure what definition you are using, and this is not part of the debate so I will move on. 5) I want to point out that your argument is this, "We need to teach them a lesson by forcing them to have that baby, and in the process be emotionally destroyed for having to do so." This is your solution pro-lifers. I would say this supports my claim that pro-lifers are indeed detached from reality. 6) You cannot really describe matter. You can give it a name. You can call it what you want. You can even look at the atoms and call them atoms. However, you are never actually describing what that thing is, you are merely interpreting what you see. This is what you mean when you say we cannot perceive the objective world. You make it seem like it's behind a curtain or something and we cannot ever understand how any of it works. 7) You doubt black markets will open because you are detached from reality in this niche of your logic. Black markets will open because that is how things work. If you prohibit an item that has value, you increase that value and create alternative ways to meet that demand. The demand will be met. The fact that you don't realize this further supports my claim that you are detached from the variables within our objective reality that build the problem you so desperately seek to resolve. 8) You downplay the problems in foster care systems because you really don't understand the problems currently plaguing most foster care systems. So, I would suggest you do some research. This will help you come in line with reality a little more. Also, the problems you would create for social services would be, insane. Who is paying for all this? Pro-lifers? 9 & 10) It's not just about protesting. It's about expending energy for a cause that is counterproductive. It will actually harm society to do what you propose to do. If you ban abortion, not only are you sidestepping the core problem, but you create such a burden for local government that it would not be sustainable. 11) The problem of abortion? Abortion was a band aid. Nobody wants people to continue getting pregnant just to have abortions. EVERYBODY agrees that unwanted pregnancies are a problem. Why are we not working on that? Why not devote your time and energy to the right causes. So your solution is going into schools to talk to these kids about not doing the only thing their bodies are telling them to do. Real smart. I am absolutely positive nobody cares about anything you have to say after they get to that party on Friday night. This problem is pervasive, and you will never solve it with a ban on abortion. This is merely a crusade that makes you feel nice inside. This is further proof of a detachment from reality. 12) Let me quote you here. "My opponent needs to prove that abortion is objectively impossible to be the problem, which he continues to fail to do." Abortion, again, is not the problem. Unwanted pregnancy is the problem. This is the detachment you still fail to see. You believe the problem is abortion, because you are detached from reality. The problem is pretty obvious. 13) I don't need to argue about the rate of illegal abortions. You can have your 1,000 number. Just realize what year that was in. That was in the 70's. You keep using 1,000 although you must realize that number was "reported illegal abortions" and you have no way of knowing how much higher the number was. We both agree it probably was not 1,000 times higher. However, you fail to account for the variation. The number was much higher than 1,000 and I think you know that. You use this to minimize the opposing side, charming but not effective. 14) This was just you restating your position. 15) Nobody ever said the loss of life would be greater if abortion was illegal. I said you are creating new problems. If you cannot understand the burden you would put on agencies of state and federal government, you need to research a little more. Who pays for this change? Who pays the new police officers we now need to hire? Who pays for the federal agency to enforce the ban? You ask me...."How do we know it will create problems?" This is further evidence of a detachment from reality. 16) Again, you reference "absolute variables" and this is just you misunderstanding what the word means. I provided a definition above for you to look at. You assert that since something is absolute it cannot change. This is not true. You also get the term variable confused with something else.... an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change. Again, I will not go into this as it is not part of the debate. However, I would be happy to start another debate on absolute variables. 17) Here you attempt to separate the pro-life movement from the overall goal of ending "murder" all together. For the sake of debate might I add. Pro-lifers support the same movement the rest of us support. Nobody wants to have an abortion. This is not a problem that requires prohibition. However, since you are detached from the reality that creates the symptom you are trying to fix with a ban on abortion, you will never reach the real goal. You claim no real goal exists. Really? So in the quest to ban abortion you don't have an ultimate vision of fixing society so unwanted pregnancy does not occur? Well, then you are more detached than I initially thought. You attempt to say that the only focus here is abortion. Well, that is the core of this problem. That is the core of your detachment. The problem is not abortion. The problem is a pervasive social worm that cannot be fixed with a ban on abortion. The detachment you live in prevents you from understanding me. This detachment, if resolved, would allow you to understand that a path toward less dead babies exists, and it is much more efficient than the one you are currently on. Your only argument is that I don't know what this path is. That's subjective, and really isn't part of this debate. This debate is about whether or not pro-lifers are detached from reality. I will leave it up to the voters to decide. My opponent has used a substantial amount of rhetoric to support his arguments. He asserts that no real problem exists here, we are just trying to stop abortion. Well, I disagree with that. I think this is a waste of our resources and should be looked at through a new lens. This problem is a pervasive social issue, and prohibition will not end it, just as prohibition failed to in the past. My opponent attempts to persuade you that this is just my subjective opinion. That is for you to decide, but I assure you it is not subjective. The real issue is obvious, and I think these voters are smart enough to understand that. The real problem is unwanted pregnancy. The detachment from reality these pro-lifers continue to embrace will ultimately serve to inhibit any progress on the issue. Pro-lifers, like my opponent, fail to realize the implications a ban on abortion would have on law enforcement, social services, and government itself. You may say, "well that's better than dead babies" , but you fail to realize it results in the same. Stretched social services, less law enforcement due to a new case-load, and budget cuts to pay for this nightmare. My opponent fails to consider these things because of his detachment from reality. I believe I have proven my case. I believe the intelligent voters will understand what I am saying. The problem is not abortion. The problem is unwanted pregnancy. Any deviation from the correct path toward a solution is a waste of resources. Pro-lifers would have us spend years lobbying to ban abortion, years trying to enforce it, and finally end up with the same problem we have today, unwanted pregnancies. I say that's a detachment from reality, and I know you do too.