Joe Bidens Position on Abortion

To quickly answer your clarification questions, No the distinction is not relevant, what I meant by the catholic view for purposes of this debate is that abortion is ultimately murder. I am sorry for not being more clear on that. It did not occur to me there would be so many ways to misread the intent of my resolution when I made it. Before fully addressing the answers given by my opponent to my questions, I would first like to set up my 2 basic cases for supporting each part of the resolution. That the position being discussed is Irrational, and I will make a case that it is at the very least barbaric. Irrational: To state that you personally would agree with the churches position on abortion, you and Joe Biden at the very least are stating that you personally agree that abortion is Murder. So to further add that you would while understanding its murder yourself; would support a person’s right to commit murder legally. This is irrational. While the support of a legal right to abortion might have ground to stand on with the premises that it is not a real murder of an innocent human child, it is just a fish at that stage, when you admit the premises that it is a human child and terminating its life would be an immoral murder of a innocent human life, then it should not follow that terminating its existence is to be a protected legal right for its mother or anyone to choose that for that matter. Even at an extreme view of keeping government limited and promoting civil liberties wherever possible, there’s still a time when it’s finally admitted the government does get involved and that’s when the personal liberties of one is infringing upon another. You are free to go ride horses, but if you start riding someone else’s horses, well now your infringing on there rights to their property if they did not grant you permission, and so you have sacrificed the protection of your own rights as a result and so the law has you locked up. Similarly, should I choose to murder you because you bought the last copy of the new assassin’s creed game and you are an inconvenience to my week because of it for example, then suddenly I have given up the inalienable rights to my own life and the government can now come in and give me the death penalty for my barbaric slaughter of you in the Wal-Mart parking lot. You at the most expect protection from the law from ever letting me the ability to so freely strangle you at your car in such a public place. You at the least demand should such a barbaric thing be done to you I suffer consequences for causing your death. And its flat out beyond your imagination to fathom anyone would even think about not only keeping the government out my stopping my choice to kill you for the video game, but to also have said government fund setting up businesses very similar to the one in the game I want to take from your corpse where I pay someone else to go legally kill you. When you do not acknowledge that abortion is in fact a murder of any kind of course, It does not give me logical room to apply comparing that Wal-Mart Black Friday gone wrong murder scenario to the abortion debate. But when you do acknowledge abortion is murder as you have, then it gives me every room to do so now. If its not ‘infringements on my rights’ to keep me from murdering you, its not “infringements” on any rights to keep a woman from murdering her child. Barbaric: For some it may not concern them that it is established that an abortion is a murder. They might say “so what? That doesn’t mean it still shouldn’t be my legal right to commit this kind of act of murder, I challenge Thomas Jefferson’s premise as false when he said “we have an inalienable right to life” so its still logical” Well then I make my case this logic if you can call it logic while arguable is rational if it honestly disregards the primes Jefferson gave about the role of government and the rights it must protect, it is still a barbaric view. It is asking that Government now purposely ignores the rights to ones own life and allow for the free murder of individuals in selective situations. If we did not have the premise it is murder, than being pro-abortion would just be asking the government to ‘give a woman the right to choose’ but with the admission its murder its changes to asking them to ignore the right to life. Q1 response: Given the above difficulties with being pro-abortion but holding to the premise its murder, I asked you just what defines when the law should not stop murder. You gave 3 conditions for me to contest. 1) “victim depends on third party to live”: By this definition you have been given, I would qualify from birth on to the age of 16, possible farther, as someone who my parents who support me have the right to kill. After all without their financle aid and sheltering and feeding me, I would not be expected to live. Especially when I was a baby only a month old. This could even go for the governments right to kill welfare recipients actually, as we give them welfare because we do not expect them to be able to feed themselves without the aid, or they would not get it. this definition would mean even Casey Anthony committed no wrong when she drowned her baby. 2) “defeats its purpose”: By no stretch of the imagination could criminalizing abortion defeat its purpose to protect life. More babies are murdered by abortion in a day than people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Even considering rare, if even existent, cases where the mother would die without an abortion, it could never add up against the lives that would be saved. 3) “run afoul of other laws”: By this conditions logic, Germany should not have ever made it illegal to murder Jews after WWII was over, considering other pre-existing laws made it legal. Q2 response: For space purposes I’m just going to leave this debate to continue with the first question I asked, considering your answers to the second are so close to your answers to the first and require basically the same response I have already give , as well as the fact that the law focused Q1 has a little more bearing on this debate.