The basic defense of bieng pro life abortion is a contradiction to the defense of the death penalty.

In reviewing my opponents final argument it has become apparent that there is a gigantic hole in his logic. His entire argument is based on what he perceives as the "basic" defense for "Pro Life abortion". He continues to exert this based on the idea that the Pro-Life majority position, on which the "basic defense of being pro-life abortion" is predicated, relies solely on the right to life of all individuals regardless of the circumstance. Furthermore, he has failed to objectively prove what the most "basic" (common) defense for pro-life abortion even is. I will show why he has not definitively proved either of these insinuations or that they are, in themselves, contradictory. My opponent uses the U. S. Catholic Bishops proclamation of the pro-life stance in order to justify his position. As is obvious, there is no way for my opponent to prove that this group actually represents the majority opinion of the Pro-Life group. In fact, lets take a look at a little of the diversity of pro-life views: "Diversity of pro-life views The major stated goal of the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life. "[6] This protection would include fetuses and embryos, persons who cannot communicate their wishes due to physical or mental incapacitation, and those who are too weak to resist being euthanized. Some pro-life advocates, such as those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic, oppose virtually all acts that end human life. They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Key elements to take from the above: 1. "The MAJOR" (basic, common) goal of the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to INNOCENT human life". Major -adjective 10. of or pertaining to the majority: the major opinion. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Thus, the majority of the defenses (most common / basic) for the Pro-Life position would necessarily incorporate the restriction of taking an INNOCENT human life, not a life in general. Therefore, it is not contradictory to revoke the life of a guilty individual. 2. "SOME pro-life advocates . .. oppose virtually all acts that end human life". SOME, not all, not even a stated majority, of the Pro-Life advocates support the prohibition of all acts. In other words, this is not the common belief within the Pro-Life advocacy. Further, my opponent even points out that there are both "liberal" and "conservative" sides of the Pro-Life argument. Given the above article, we can actually see that the majority opinion is the "conservative" one which does not apply to the right to life of a guilty individual. Again, no contradiction in advocating both Pro-Life abortion and defending the Death Penalty. My opponent continues: "This is why I chose to say "basic" defense, for instance the defense chosen the large majority of the time. The following is a random pull from this very site of a debate still in debating period titled,:" Where has my opponent proved that the common defense is the right to life for all? One "random" debate from debate. org proves this? First, I'd like to see his methods of randomization for selecting this current debate. Even if this debate was randomly drawn from the current debates on the topic of abortion, this in no way proves any correlation to the defenses of past debates on this site, or all debates in general. Had my opponent stated the resolution to be "The basic defense BY DEBATORS ON DEBATE. ORG of being pro life abortion is a contradiction to THEIR defense of the death penalty. " and followed this up with statistics proving that the common defense was, in fact, the right to life in all instances, I would have to concede this debate. HOWEVER, this is not how my opponent set the resolution and the onus was on him to provide affirmative proof of his claims. Since my opponent has failed to do so, it must be seen that he has failed to affirm the resolution. Additionally, I have provided substantial evidence to show that the two positions are NOT contradictory. Given these factors, my opponent cannot have merited a win on this debate and should not receive your vote. Although I have already proved that my opponent must lose this debate, I will continue for the sake of argument. "The death penalty takes the life which is a violation of ones right to life. " In my opening round dealing with the principles of the Social Contract and the "rights" of people within a society based on these principles, I proved that a person found guilty of a crime and given the death penalty has forfeited his right to life. In order for society to function, criminals rights must be revoked under the social contract. Thus his statement "Killing is wrong, so I will kill you for killing someone" should actually read as: "Killing an INNOCENT person is wrong, so I (SOCIETY) will kill you, a GUILTY individual, for killing an INNOCENT person. " When qualifying the people killing and being killed, you can obviously see that this is NOT a contradictory position and is justified under the principles of social contract. "The basic defense for abortion as I have clearly stated is that everyone has the right to live, making abortion wrong" - Not true. My opponent failed to prove that this is, in fact, the basic (common) defense. "however, if one takes the right to live away, for instance by murder, they can be killed back; which as I have shown above displays a SELF-CONTRADICTORY EFFECT, thus contradicting. " - Again, not true on the basis of the Social Contract. "It is still contradictory in effect for a court to prosecute ones that kill life in every other instance, yet protect the right of woman to kill the life of her unborn child" Two things here which show this statement not only to be false, but also NOT contradictory: 1. The court does not prosecute "every other instance" of "ones that kill life. " An example of this would be someone who kills in self-defense. In the case, the "killer" is not guilty of a crime because he was only attempting to protect his right to life. Had the "killer" been guilty of a crime, then yes, the courts would have the authority to revoke the killer's right to life. Thus, there is no contradiction between revoking the right to life of the guilty and preserving that of the innocent. 2. The courts do not recognize a fetus as having the right to life until it becomes viable. "The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. "[1](. http://en.wikipedia.org...) As you can see, under U. S. law, the fetus has no inherent right to life, so women are not guilty of a crime when aborting a fetus. Again, the women's right to life is preserved because they are innocent in the eyes of the court. In closing, there is NO contradiction in preserving the right to life of the innocent and revoking the right to life of the guilty in the American society. This is based on the fact that the principles of the American society are founded on the ideas of the Social Contract, which my opponent has neither rejected nor disputed.