Abortion is First Degree Murder

Con claims, "Abortion is legal in the United States as of Roe V Wade, and it's legal in most western nations, so by western standards, abortion would not be first degree murder for this reason." For the U.S., the ultimate law-of-the-land is its Constitution. Interestingly enough it is the 14th amendment which condemns the ruling of Roe v. Wade, a ruling which itself was based on a misapplication of the same amendment. In Section I we find that no law shall be passed which shall, "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (1). Where is the equal protection for a developing human's life? That inappropriate precedent has been set does not negate the validity of an unborn human's right to life. What crime has any fetus committed against its mother that it should deserve the death penalty. Obviously such an idea is ludicrous, as an unborn fetus is has not attained a moral standing to be held accountable to. Roe v. Wade erroneously claimed that abortion was protected by the 14th amendment's "right to privacy" clause interpreted from the "due process" statement. Granted all U.S. citizens have a right to privacy, however, this right is lost when a citizen violates a person's right to life. Life takes precedence over privacy! This is why the right to have an abortion is not a fundamental right, as it has not been shown that abortions fall under the right to privacy clause (2). Roe v. Wade's ruling on abortion fails the strict scrutiny analysis for substantive due process: What compelling reason is there to infringe on the developing human's right to life? A woman's right to privacy certainly does not meet any compelling standard to subvert a person's right to life any more than a serial killer's right to privacy override his victim's right to life. As demonstrated in my opening argument, a fetus from the very first zygotic stage of embryonic development is a biologically distinct and genetically unique human being biochemically separated from the mother (as the mother's immune system attempts to attack the fetus as a foreign intruder). Therefore a woman has no right to privacy if she attempts to engage in the killing of her unborn child. My case remains unaddressed by Con's argument as the ruling of Roe v. Wade is critically undermined by the Constitution to which its judicial officials are bound.Con erroneously claims that a women may not be guilty of malice aforethought as perhaps, "she recognizes she would be a terrible mother and doesn't want to subject the child to herself, or perhaps she is unable to properly provide for the child and doesn't want the child to have to go through a terrible life. . .maybe the baby was going to have such a severe birth defect, that the mother didn't want to make the baby be born and be subject to that terrible defect." While proposed sympathy for the potential hardships of a yet to be born human being are often touted as valid justification for abortion, the mother's concerns for her progeny are simply irrelevant. It is not for her to decide the fate of her child; no person can decide to end another's life for them, much less without their express consent. To be fair and address these potentially honest concerns, there are many people and organizations who would gladly take-in a child whose mother has deemed herself unfit as a parent. As for children born with potentially painful birth defects, medicine has come a long way in being able to treat such cases and even perhaps cure them. If treatment is not an option, medical professionals can at least attempt to make pain more tolerable with drugs or other forms of treatment. The point is, there are options, especially here in the U.S. Life is to be fought for as an unalienable right protected by the Constitution. Imagine a mother whose 2 year-old child fell off a slide in a playground and damaged her neck in such a way that her prognosis is that she will suffer debilitating pain for the rest of her life. If the mother of this child were to take her daughter's life for fear of her future suffering, she would be prosecuted of murder in the 1st degree as she had the mal-intent of killing her daughter, contemplating it and then carrying it out. It is clear to see that the murder of any human being with malice aforethought is murder in the first degree. Sympathetic rational does not negate aforethought of murder as "malicious." The act of taking another's life without justifiable reason is by nature malicious as a person's right to life is the most fundamental right protected by the Constitution and no doubt unalienable (3).The contention stands: abortion is properly unlawful and malicious in nature.References1 - https://www.archives.gov... 2 - http://nationalparalegal.edu... 3 - https://www.law.cornell.edu...