Joe Bidens Position on Abortion

Opening Statement From the personal level, Joe Biden"s position on abortion largely reflects his personal commits to the Catholic beliefs. By definition, Joe Biden, at the very least, considers that abortion is murder. On the other hand, however, Joe Biden decisions of not imposing his personal view on others also suggests that he acknowledges the fact public sentiments toward abortion is divided. "Americans are closely divided between those calling themselves "pro-choice" and those who are "pro-life", now 49% and 45%", according to In Gallup"s 2011 update on U. S. abortion attitudes [1]. In a survey asking about whether abortion is morally wrong, over half of Americans, 51% believe abortion is "morally wrong," wile 39% says it is "morally acceptable. "[1] By combining the results of both surveys, although it is nowhere to conclude that the animosity toward abortion is abating, it sufficient say that Americans are gradually accepting the notion of abortion. Would you consider it is irrational to reaffirm one"s belief while also respect others" opinions? Perhaps not. From the political perspective, The reconciliatory tone, adopted by Biden, between his personal belief and social sentiments would undoubtedly appeal to many female voters. Women constitutes of over 52% of the electorates with many single moms strongly support abortion. Therefore, to a certain extent, it would be unwise for politicians to turn back on their demands and voices, especially in a high stake political race. Unlike Mitt Romney, whose self-inflicted mistakes had alienated many female voters, Biden"s remarks on abortion re-enforced his image that he is open-minded and willing to listen to people. Do you believe the general public would view a Presidential nominee in a favorable light when he was silent on the remarks of "slut" and "legitimate rape? " On sensitive issue, speaking in a reconciliatory tone is a shrewd tactic that only skillful politicians would be able to employ, who in turn must possess rationality. Rebuttal Irrational The central argument in Pro"s contention is: it is irrational for a person to believe a particular activity is immoral while he or she continues supporting the activity. In other words, pro"s argument would require an assumption that "only morally approved activity can be lawful. " Consider Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law, which defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife [2]. Obama administration, along with various liberal organizations, argues that the law is immoral on the ground that it is discriminately against a vulnerable group. It does not comport with Pro"s definition since DOMA is immoral but still lawful. Therefore, not all laws pass the muster of moral test. Another explanation of Biden"s remark, although unlikely, but not impossible, is that Biden was lying (in a way, all politicians lie). Pro"s argument requires an assumption that Biden"s statements genuinely reflect what he believed. The assumption, however, may or may not be true given the fact that he made such remark during Presidential Campaign. Barbaric According to the definition, "Ugly and barbaric" means "potentially could make coherent sense but is still an incredibly draconian horrific thing to ever expect to be said with a strait face. " Biden"s remarks, however, hardly qualify "incredibly draconian. " In principle, Biden presented his personal belief of a particular act while also attempted to argue against it by reasoning that his belief may not be acceptable to others. In essence, Biden tends to believe that his Catholic belief on abortion is strictly personal view and may not necessarily be shared by others. It hardly constitutes an "horrific thing", let alone "incredibly draconian. " Q1 "Victim depends on third party to live. " Let me address all three examples in sequence. The first example that Pro invoked is child rearing. The example presupposes that parents are indispensable to one"s life. Experiences have told us that it is not always the case. It may be true that parents are necessary for the well-beings of their kids, it is not the same as saying that parents must present in order for their kids to survive. Relatives, for examples, would an alternative to the parents; orphanage, for examples, is another option for whose parents are absent. By definition, legal guardians are not parents. Therefore, the first example that Pro proposed does not fall into my definitions. The second example is about welfare. Welfare recipients rely on government"s program on the ground that it is relatively convenient way for them to get aid. Government"s welfare program is not, however, the only way to get their aids. Catholic Church, for instance, plays an preeminent role in helping people who are at financial disadvantage. Government, therefore, is not essential for the survival for this particular group of people. The third example concerns about Ms. Casey Anthony. A cursory research reveals that Casey Marie Anthony was accused of murdering her daughter, Calyee Anthony. She was tried the first degree murder but acquitted by jury. "On July 5, 2011, the jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter a child, or aggravated child abuse. She was found guilty on four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. " [3] Therefore, Pro"s assertion with regard to Ms. Casey"s case is not a genuine reflection of the nature of the case. Defeats its purpose The abortion that pro has suggested is amount to a complete ban on abortion. As suggest by his assertion "even considering rare, if even existent, cases where the mother would die without an abortion, it would never add up against the lives that would be saved," mothers may not seek abortion even in the case of medical emergency. The purpose of law (ban on abortion with no obvious exceptions), apparently, is for the preservation of human life. In a medical emergency, both unborn child and his or her mother"s lives are in grave danger. Under a complete ban, physicians may not perform or induce an abortion, even if abortion may save at least one human's life. It palpably defeats the purpose of law that sets out to accomplish. Run afoul of other laws It should be recognized that the United States protect unborn child from abortion after the second trimester (around 22 to 24 weeks). The condition "run afoul of other laws" is made within the content of current abortion regulations. In its landmark case, Roe v. Wade, the U. S. Supreme Court invalidate anti-abortion law on the ground that the it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman"s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. [4] By implementing a complete ban on abortion, woman"s Fourteenth Amendment right would be in jeopardy. In term of Germany discriminated laws against Jewish people, what they need do is to abolish the unsustainable laws. Similarly, Obama administration is seeking to repeal DOMA, not to replace DOMA by an "Anti-DOMA legislation. " There is no law, on federal level, is incompatible with DOMA. Modification of existing laws is not the same as "run afoul of existing laws. " Q2 Response Question 2 is an extension of question 1. It is slightly different from the first since it dresses the moral issue of "murder. " Some of the conditions are served as the basis of my answers to question 1. The second condition, for example, requires a premise which some immoral acts are legally permissible. Thank you References [1]. . http://www.gallup.com... [2]. . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]. . http://civilliberty.about.com...