Logical inconsistencies or outright errors I found in the debate between @JojoRRuba/@StudentsforLife and @bradleypierce/@AbolitionistFAA: 1. At the beginning of the debate, the moderator says, “The debate question is: What is the best way to pursue equal protection for the pre-born?” Both parties agreed on the definition of equal protection as “the same laws that protect the lives of born children should protect the lives of preborn children.” Jojo states that this debate is not really about the outcome (pre-born children receiving equal protection) or about “jailing women,” as he repeatedly characterizes equal protection. It seems strange to use a derogatory slogan for something you say you support. In the end, he says that what Bradley has to offer is “not Christian,” even though they apparently have the same end goal. Jojo primarily uses emotionally charged hypotheticals in an attempt to discredit Bradley rather than address the debate question. 2. Jojo repeatedly claims that abolitionists have no strategy for achieving equal protection. False. The strategy is equal protection bills, which pro-life organizations consistently and actively fight against using their political leverage. Jojo and Students for Life offer no strategy for achieving equal protection other than hoping the culture gets on board at some arbitrary point in the future. 3. Jojo says that partiality means preferring one person over another, referencing James 2. He claims that abolitionists misinterpret the Bible because they say that withholding justice from pre-born babies shows partiality toward women. There are at least six key scriptures in the Old Testament that command impartiality in judgment, specifically referring to legal cases: Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; Deuteronomy 16:19; Exodus 23:3; Psalm 82:2; Malachi 2:9. 4. Jojo says this is “not even about what God wants” and claims that God gives us wisdom—as if that wisdom could differ from the instructions He gives us. 1 Corinthians 3:19 says that the wisdom of man is foolishness to God. If your “wisdom” disagrees with God, it is foolishness. 5. Jojo claims that Bradley made a false connection when he argued that pro-life laws have failed to protect babies in the U.S. because abortion numbers have continued to rise post-Dobbs. Jojo says this is a false claim because these laws target surgical abortions. First of all, I thought the goal was to save lives, not just target one method of taking them. Second, why, then, are pro-life leaders around the country claiming to be saving thousands of pre-born babies through pro-life laws while refusing to address the increasing number of abortions, even in states with partial or total bans? It is clear that, in order to defend the current pro-life position—which its advocates have tried to rebrand as “permanent abolition” to avoid opposing something as common sense as equal protection—you have to twist yourself into an illogical pretzel.