Joe Bidens Position on Abortion

I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to my opponent for his thoughtful argument. Summary The resolution, presented in the first round, states as: Joe Biden"s position on abortion is illogical or at the very least ugly and barbaric, where Biden"s position is: agrees with catholic church the immorality of abortion, but is for supporting its legality and not imposing his catholic view of the morality of abortion on others. My argument hinges on one particular proposition: In a social issue debate, what one believes to be true may not necessarily be true for others. Even if by accepting the Catholic beliefs on abortion, I cannot be certain that the non-Catholic population would agree with me on the issue. What separates the Wal-Mart & KKK examples from the abortion is that, as for the former conduct, nearly everyone would agree that the act constitutes a murder (there is a set of established standards to determine what constitutes murder); but the lack of a prevailing opinion among the general public renders the legitimacy of the latter activity more ambiguous. During the interview, Biden merely spoke out his belief while he also sought the opportunity to respect others" opinions. In a social issue debate, the public opinions usually have a great influence on the legitimacy of the activity. Gay marriage, for example, is completely unthinkable several decades ago. Today, there are several states that have already legalized the gay marriage. Therefore there is nothing irrational to say: I may disagree with you, but I do respect your choices and opinions. Final Rebuttal "It is irrational for a person to believe a particular activity is immoral while he or she continues supporting the activity." The herein principle is a paraphrase to the resolution: It is irrational for a person (Biden) to believe a particular activity (abortion/murder) is immoral while he (Biden) continues supporting the activity (abortion/murder). What Biden chooses to believe is not the same as saying that general public must hold the similar belief as he does. Whether I embrace the Catholic view or whether I must analyze the issue from a Catholic view may not be relevant to the public opinions. "In other words, pro"s argument would require an assumption that only morally approved activity can be lawful." The assumption can be implied from: "This is irrational, while the support of a legal right...terminating his 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..." The above position can be summarized as: since it would be immoral (murder) for someone to carry out a particular activity (murder of an innocent human life), then the aforementioned activity is not legally permissible (should not follow...). Essentially, what Con was trying to establish is: "since it is immoral, it is illegal." or "since it is legal, it must be moral." It is a precarious principle given the fact that not all laws are moral. If Con decides to single out murder for excoriation without referring to immorality, the argument would then inevitably beg the question: "why murder is illegal? Because it is not legal to murder someone." "Should Biden of being lying" On the contrary, it has everything to do with the resolution. If Biden was trying to play the dirty political games, nothing of what he had said can be considered a genuine reflection of his belief. In other words, it is possible that Biden believe legal means should be pursued to end abortion. If it was the case, then the entire remark is merely a lie and it may have nothing to do with rationality. [P.S. Is there an irrational lie?] Barbaric: What Biden has concluded is that Catholic view on abortion may not be correct even if he chooses to believe it. Con"s argument presupposes the correctness of Catholic belief ("But others do not understand the truth that I myself know") while the belief itself may not necessarily be correct. Unlike the KKK example, there is no general consensus among the general public on abortion. The rationale behind Con"s argument is: what I believe to be true therefore must be true. Belief is a subjective perception and it subjected to one"s philosophy, one"s experiences and one"s attitudes toward life and the moral standards. It would be inappropriate to dictate one"s belief on others. Dependent Children The reason that fetus would not be able to live outside the mother"s womb, even with artificial aid, is due to the biologic fact that child"s neuron system is not sufficiently developed until approximately 24-28 weeks. Perhaps one day, the medical technology can help unborn child develop his or her neuron system outside mother"s womb, but both conception and abortion will then fade into the obscurity of many archaic traditions. Moreover, this is not a double standard at all. Born child is not self-sufficient, but he or she can live independently of his or her mother. Unborn child may also be not self-sufficient, but his or her life depends on the well-being of mother. Two objects (unborn child & born child) may have one particular character in common (not self-sufficient), but one cannot conclude that both objects must be subject to the equal treatment (protection). Casey Anthony & Other Examples The case, along all the cited examples, does not comply with the definition I put forward. Parents may not knowingly terminate the life of their offspring in light of the fact that children are expected to survive without the care of their parents. Parents, at least in the United States, are not indispensable to the survive of their offspring. In terms of Ms.Casey Anthony. For the readers who are not familiar with the event, the case is misleading. I would not be surprised that many readers would have no idea what O.J Simpson murder case is, although the case had created its own kind of famous. Defeats its purpose. Con"s position is untenable on the ground that the argument itself inexorably involves a contradiction. By the same logic, I could equally ask: "What good is a government if it cannot even protect the simple right to mothers" lives? Is it a laudable way to protect a mother"s health by redefining her right to life in terms of some numeric values? I hope not. As for the 0.2% remark, there are at least two problems with the report: First, the samples are unrepresentative. The report involves only 24 states (out of 50 + Columbia district). In addition, the selected states overwhelmingly lean toward Republicans (13 out of 24), and only 6 out 24 states lean toward Democrats. It is known that Republicans tend to identify themselves as social conservatives while Democrats are inclined to consider themselves social liberals. Since the report does not fully capture the liberal thoughts(New York and California for examples), it cannot be representative for the entire nation. Second, the math does not work. It is eminently possible that the relatively low abortion rate done to save the life of the mother is the result of practicing abortion itself. For example, mothers may need to obtain treatment for a medical condition such as breast cancer. Under the condition that the report has been conducted (abortion is legal), mother may seek abortion without being classified as "save the life of the mother." A complete ban or even a moratorium on abortion will inescapably jeopardize women"s health by severely curtailing physicians" ability to treat patents who face serious health conditions. What good is a government if it cannot even protect mothers" lives? These figures are misleading at best and irresponsible at worst. Conclusion This debate is about the rationale behind Joe Biden"s remark during 2008 Presidential Campaign. Biden"s position on abortion suggests that he acknowledges the fact that public sentiments toward abortion is divided. Biden is committed to his belief while he also attempts to respect others". Therefore, it is preposterous to suggest that Biden"s remark is irrational or barbaric. Thank you.