Biden's Blunder

My IQ is nowhere near the stratospheric number that I can only imagine Joe Biden’s to be--
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEqyYUGk4I)
--so I’m sure he could condescendingly explain to me why his support for abortion rights and his belief that life begins at conception are not contradictory, and therefore not subject to easy challenge in debate by lesser minds, such as those of his Republican opponents.

Here’s how I interpret his recent statements:

1) A woman is carrying a human life inside her womb, not a yet-to-be-determined something that is not human life.

2) Whatever the woman does with that life, as long as it remains inside her womb, is her business and her business only (he would not support turning his personal views into law).

3) Meanwhile, society has every right--even a responsibility--to interfere with her actions towards that life once it is outside her womb—unless Biden supports a woman’s right to neglect, murder or abuse her child without civil or criminal consequence---which, I think I can safely say without checking, the Senator does not. So, in this case, when life exists outside the womb (unless you voted against the Born Alive amendment, like his running mate), it is perfectly acceptable to impose personal views, in the form of law, upon individual women who injure or attempt to harm their child.

4) In effect, Biden answered the Saddleback question that Obama sidestepped—a life doesn’t acquire human rights in the United States until it is outside the womb. A life, an American citizen’s life, with fewer rights by virtue of location? But aren’t the protections of the American government extended to its citizens even in locations outside the U.S.? So, location can’t be the legal support, as of course the crafters of Roe vs. Wade knew, which is why they promoted privacy rights as the basis for that law.

5) Thus women, by virtue of Roe vs. Wade, may injure or kill their child only as long as it is still inside the womb. If Democrats would admit that as their position, and argue its justifications, instead of dancing around it with euphemisms like “choice”, they just might persuade me that some of the party’s other positions---on defense, taxes and health care, are also intellectually and practically sustainable. Until they drop the sophistry on abortion, though, I can’t respect their analytical thinking on any issue.

6) There used to be a saying that intelligent Catholics (I’m sure Joe Biden considers himself one) had to “leave their brains outside the door” in order to attend a church promulgating antiquated and outdated dogma. Perhaps Senator Biden’s big brain should come inside the Church with him next time, and consider adopting the Church's very defensible stance on Life: Just wars are okay, but abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty are not. No nuances there--if you don’t favor killing the rapist, don’t kill his child, even when it is still in the womb (unless its birth may take the life of the mother). That’s just as disconcerting a stance for me as it must be for Joe Biden to condone the taking of what he knows to be innocent life, but even to my little brain, it’s forensically sound.

Is this the debate in which Obama's eager to engage? Really?