Violent defense of the unborn is a legitimate tool to end abortion.

I shall start with addressing his quote. Counter-Case I: Rev. Paul Jennings Quote. Part 1: "It is certain that we should use the means necessary to defend the innocent, and since the unborn are innocent, it is equally certain that we should use the means necessary to defend them. " Response 1: This is a presumption. Should we take all necessary means to defend an innocent life? Even murder? Should we declare war on an powerful nation to save a single life? No, there is ultimately a limit. Part 2: "If we knew that we, or our loved ones were about to be killed, as thousands of unborn children are each day, we would defend one another with the means necessary. " Response 2: This is one massive appeal to emotion. No one can be expected to respond in a proper, rational means when it's a loved one. That is why there are rules for who can be on a jury and who can preside. In order to make the right choice, we must not make the mistake of allowing an appeal to emotion to cloud our judgement. Part 3: "We would not limit ourselves to legal and educational remedies that might possibly stop the bloodshed in the future; rather, we would take the immediate action necessary to save one another. If questioned, we would assert the moral necessity of taking this action. The law of love requires us to similarly defend the unborn, and uphold the duty to do so. " Response 3: This very argument justifies ISIS, Stalin, and Hitler. They all work on personal moralities. We must never ignore legal remedies, as once we decide one thing is worth ignoring the law, we set down on a dangerous path of precedence which can easily justify ignoring law on many other occasions. We have seen many other times with places such as Ferguson, MO, that we already have a precarious situation with people openly defying law in violent manners, that last thing we need is to push deeper. Pro continues on afterwards to mention the Law of Love, which is undefined, and may be interpreted into any of a million possible meanings to justify any actions. Lastly Pro mentioned our "duty to do so", again assuming many things. Part 4: "The duty the defend the innocent with the means necessary is an essential aspect of the Moral Law that is found in both the Old and New Testaments, and has been recognized and implemented throughout history. " Response 4: Pro mentions a "Moral Law", which, just like "Law of Love", is an undefined (and unbinding) law with many possible interpretations. Pro says it is found in the Testaments of the Bible, which is not a binding, nor entirely accepted document. Opponents may bring in the fact that the Bible also ordains a genocide to make room for the Jews. The fact that they have been implemented throughout history means nothing has biblical law only truly was implemented in Christian nations, and only during the middle ages in large quantity. And still it wouldn't matter as it would be an appeal to tradition. Part 5: "Neither the overwhelming majority of citizens, nor the government, questions the duty to defend the innocent. " Response 5: The is entirely a misrepresentation of the concept. If asked, certainly no citizen will argue with the phrase, but once you go into detail, that is where you will find that people would not extend this to include murdering someone (whom they are likely to themselves consider more or less innocent). Part 6: "Not everyone agrees on the degree of defensive force that is appropriate, but the obligation to defend innocent people with the means necessary is such a clear and compelling aspect of the Moral Law that it can scarcely be denied. " Response 6: This is again making a presumption. Again most people, once given details on the implications, will give a much more refined answer which will not include murder. Most would say that breaking "moral law" (the dangers of which I've prior noted) by murdering someone is far worse. Counter-Case 2: Rev. Paul Jennings After the quote Pro goes on to detail the murders committed by Rev. Jones. For the entire first paragraph of this part, he presents absolutely nothing but a backstory, which itself doesn't seem to advance the debate. That fact that he performed those murders does not in any way show why it's acceptable, nor is a blunt statement that others show follow suit. The fact that others followed suit also shows nothing on why it's an acceptable action. Pro goes on to mention that these murders saved innocent lives, however many of these women would likely have just went elsewhere to acquire their abortions, and many could argue that saving one innocent life by killing another innocent life (as the "Moral Law" isn't a binding or even detailed law of any sort) is ultimately still worse, as the murder will gravely hurt those who knew the doctor. Pro is putting the life of this child over the life of a life saving doctor and holds no regards for the wife and child of whatever doctor has been murdered. Pro mentions a woman who spoke up about being made to keep the child, however this is again an appeal to emotion, and does not answer for the fact that in an alternate version where the woman didn't keep the child, she is likely to also be just as happy. Pro ends his round by making a claim of moral objectivity, claiming we are all bound by his morality though most of us are likely to draw the line well before murder. Counter-Case 3: Sources To put it as simply as possible, all of Pros sources are from the exact same website, except for once which is a printed journal that can't be located online. Though this doesn't nullify his sources, it certainly shouldn't go without mention. Case 1: Precedence I've mentioned it once before, but I'll bring it back up. Pro's case ultimately opens up any of a hundred horrible actions which can be justified under the same principals. If we consider something to be justified under our own personal interpretation of this "Moral Law", then we can do it. Ferguson, MO {1}? Justified. Isis? Justified. Slaughtering a small town over an insult? Justified as some people that one must retaliate against insult. {2} The things which can be justified only grow worse from there. At what point do we slaughter lawmakers for the War in Iraq? Many people consider it illegal and would consider many of it's casualties on both sides to be unacceptable. {3} Precedence must always be remembered. Case 2: The Lack of Uniformity in Morality. Furthermore, Pro neglects that not everyone considers abortion a bad thing to be stopped. {4} Pro is talking under the assumption that the majority of people follow his morality, when in truth Gallop Polls suggest that 47% support for Abortion (28 of hat 47% consider it acceptable all the time). Certainly these people would not support murder of the doctor, as they do not consider his actions amoral. {5} That aside few people would ever agree to the blatant murder of others, for an act which many don't consider wrong. While my opponent may consider mentioning peoples moralities as an Appeal to Popularity as I'm referencing that most are against his views, however Appeal to Popularity is informal, and it is fully acceptable to mention it when we are referencing the general view of the nation. Closing Statement I end this round by reiterating that we must bear in mind the dangerous precedence set in the idea that we can (or in Pros words, must) act in a violent and illegal manner, even resorting to murder, based on our personal interpretation of morality. We can not allow such a horrendous act to become acceptable simply because a part of the population consider Abortion a crime. 1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2]. http://www.nytimes.com... 3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4]. http://prochoice.org... 5] . http://www.gallup.com... ==Unitomic==