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

I apologize for your confusion on the context of the debate,.. so I will explain to you. You see when starting a debate one has the option to choose in what category or context the debate will be argued in, I chose social, and if you look at the top left of the main page displaying the rounds, you will see the category is social, not political. Again, sorry for any confusion on your part, that made you feel you have "burnt" a round. Now on to the debate,... "We proclaim that human life is a precious gift from God; that each person who receives this gift has responsibilities toward God, self and others; and that society, through its laws and social institutions, must protect and nurture human life at every stage of its existence." -U.S. Catholic Bishops www.usccb.org The Pro-Life Issue Spectrum To say that someone is "pro-life" is to say that the person believes that the government has an obligation to preserve all human life, regardless of intent, viability, or quality-of-life concerns. A comprehensive pro-life ethic, such as that proposed by the Roman Catholic Church and similar religious organizations, prohibits: Abortion ;Euthanasia and assisted suicide ;The death penalty ; and War, with very few exceptions. In cases where the pro-life ethic conflicts with personal autonomy, as in the case of abortion and assisted suicide, it is conservative. In cases where the pro-life ethic conflicts with government policy, as in the case of the death penalty and war, it is liberal. www.civilliberty.about.com etc..etc... Every site or source can be contradicted in belief of the ones sponsoring the site. 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,: THE rights of infants in the womb should sometimes trump the rights of the mother? Value: Protection of rights (Specified in resolution) Value Criterion: Right to life The thesis of this case is that the right to life supersedes all rights because all rights spring from it. Violating the right to life is the greatest of all right violations for this reason. Therefore, violating the right to life needs to be seen foremost in the battle for trumping different rights. Contention I: Right to life is the paramount right, and must trump other rights. When looking at competing rights, i.e. between a mother and her unborn child, the right o life must supersede. Why? Because all rights are violated when you violate the right to life. Once your dead, you dont have the right to pursue happiness, or the right to private property, etc. Therefore, between the mothers right to "Privacy" (Right established in Roe Vs. Wade)or the baby's right to life, right to life trumps. A) Right to life begins when the baby is indeed a living being. According to the UN Health Department, and 12 scientists who testified before the Senate in 2007, life begins at implantation. Implantation is the sticking of the fertilized egg to the uterine lining. I.e. 10-12 days after conception. www.debate.org (argued point by CiRrO) The death penalty takes the life which is a violation of ones right to life. To feel murder is a violation of rights that justifies the murderers right to life to be revoked, is a contradiction by every account. Killing is wrong, so I will kill you for killing someone. <<< "oxy moron" OXY MORON; a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-CONTRADICTORY effect. www.dictionary.com The basic defense for abortion as I have clearly stated is that everyone has the right to live, making abortion wrong, 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. Since this debate is in the realm of social rather than political, your argument of requiring the U.S. court to determine the innocents does not hold up. Yet, again I will pick you up on that point,... 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. Making your points of U.S. laws and courts void, as I have pointed clear and concise CONTRADICTIONS in even those on the topic of pro life VS. pro death penalty. In ending,.. I urge everyone to vote pro, as I have established the CONTRADICTIONS and CONTRADICTORY effects of the basic defenses given for being pro life and pro death penalty.