Joe Bidens Position on Abortion

Final Rebuttal: I have not been contending “it is irrational for a person to believe a particular activity is immoral while he or she continues supporting the activity” because this debate has not been about any old thing some people ‘consider immoral’ and then supported it. its about Murder. Its about recognizing it as murder, and then still protecting the freedom to murder. Murder is quite possible been the only thing that everyone regardless of there beliefs on morality has ultimately wanted the government to step in and protect you from being murdered or at least punish others for doing it to you. What good is a government if it cant even protect the simple right to your own life? “In other words, pro"s argument would require an assumption that "only morally approved activity can be lawful."” It took really twisted logic to think up this. My argument does not require any such assumption. What can be lawful and should be lawful are completely deferent. What a lawmaker does to change the current law or not change it should be consistent with his views. If believes something is murder, than he should promote new legislation that treats that something as such. Should Biden of been lying, then my resolution is unaffected. Lying only means the position is politically safe or smart in his mind, not that the position itself is rational. Barbaric: It is draconian when you think it through exactly what it is he’s fully saying. He’s basically saying “I understand and know that this thing is an act of murder. But others do not understand the truth that I myself know, that they are murdering someone when they do this thing. So because they are ignorant I think we should let them murder all they want so long as they don’t think its murder.” I can easily imagine the same statement defending a KKK member after he hung an African American…. Judge “your on trail for the murder of Patrick Jefferson how do you plee?” KKK guy “not guilty, I only killed that man but it was not murder. His race are near pure ape and thus animals and it was no more a murder than it is to kill a 8 pointer buck” Judge Biden “very well the court finds you innocent since its clear while you did cause his death, you do not personally look at your actions as murder even though we do, because we should not impose our beliefs about morality on you, you are entitled to your own in this matter” Would that not be a barbaric thing to allow to go on in our courts? But you see it is allowed, but instead of permitting the free murder of African Americans, we are allowing the murder without consequence of millions of unborn children every day. Even if you think Bidens position on abortion has a logical consistency, its still at the very least as barbaric as letting the KKK of for lynching a black person. Dependent children: None of your arguments you have provided to defend a 4 year old child as not being truly ‘dependant’ on there parents can be applied to them without at the same time fitting the description of aborted unborn infants. All that separate’s the 2 situations in your mind is our societies current ability to provide step in an provide for the child in substitute. Should 87 years pass and a slew of scientific advances make it possible for the doctors at the hospital to continue the growth of a baby in there own artificial pod once removing the child from the mother then were would you stand? Flashing back to the present though of course we don’t have that means yet. But can it be rationally possible for something to cease being murder just because a means to do something are there yet or not? If its murder then its murder now. If its not murder now when we cant keep the baby alive outside of the womb yet, then it was not murder to kill 2 week old baby back in the day before orphanages were put together. The point is a born child is not self-sufficient, and yet we protect them from murder. Yet the unborn child has the same lack of self-sufficiency as the born one yet we do not protect their life. This is a double standard. Dependant Poor: This was really just another way to phrase the same basic point as the last. So unsurprisingly it gets the same defense. It does not matter if who they must depend can change as long as another party is willing to take them in who has the means to provide for them. The point was on their own they are not self-sufficient. Really you and I could not be considered self-sufficient if we were stranded stark naked on the North Pole. If you take yourself down to the bare bones of the body that you are and how much its grown, your still dependant on the fortune of your environment to survive. The unborn case that environment just happens to be in the mothers womb. Casey Anthony: this was just a pop culture reference to a infamous case were a lot of people believe a mother killed her own child. I’m not actually out to contest if the courts decision was right concerning her. Just trying to point out there would have been no need for a trail in her case in the first place when the murder of an dependant child is her right to do. Defeats its purpose: Normally I would in these debates make they arguments against the assertion there are ever truly cases when the doctor has to perform an abortion to save the mother http://www.whyprolife.com... But for this debate what I have decided to give a try is just going with simple math. Hypothetically if were to agree with you that there are even cases you can say there has to be an abortion done to save the life of the mother, this is 0.2% of the abortion cases out there being done. The other 99.8% there is no life endangerment of anyone except the fetus’s of course. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... This means out of 1,000 abortions that are done, only 2 of them have been reported to be to save the mothers life. Assuming we trust those 2 cases out of 1,000 are truly a situation where it takes an abortion to save the mom then what would happen in terms of protecting lives if abortion were outlawed and we even assume those 0.2% cases have the mothers die as a direct result? Well out of the 1,000 abortion cases 998 lives that would have died are saved, 2 die anyway with an addition of 2 more (there moms). So does a law defeat its purpose to protect lives when without it 1,000 lives are lost, but with the law 4 are? 998/4 is much better than 2/1000. This shows there is not logical perspective to think outlawing abortion would defeat its purpose to save lives. That’s not just an opinion that’s Math. Running afoul of other laws: Your response to my point about the law in Germany while it was controlled by the nazi’s is exactly my point for Roe V Wade. It should be repealed. Just because it was Nazi Germany law that it was not murder to kill Jews does not make that law right and did not mean it should not have been repealed and replaced.