Resolved: The Supreme Court case "Roe v. Wade" should be overturned.

Let me start by thanking my opponent for the thoughtful responses provided so far. It seems my opponent takes issue with the fact that I have not endeavored to prop up Roe v. Wade, but instead refute his contentions. I sincerely hope it is understood that the burden of proof necessitating change lies upon the entity advocating for such change. I do not have to prove that abortions should be legal. They are already legal. The burden lies with my worthy opponent to explain why we should overturn this law of the land and ban something that is currently legal. My job, as it were, is to poke holes in his arguments and point out their fallacies where possible. I agree with my opponent that the definition of "life" is key to this issue. I have provided a well-respected dictionary's definition, one which is supported by many other dictionaries and the scientific community as well. My opponent offers only that he or she thinks an alternate definition "is better" because it fits more neatly with his own beliefs. I offer citations in response: Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute defines life as: "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution." Unborn children are not self-sustaining, but entirely dependent upon their mother for everything from metabolism to waste processing. Benton Clark, a prominent astrobiologist, alternatively defines life. This definition says that "life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism." Unborn children do not reproduce. In fact, Clark's definition would point to excluding pre-pubescent children and post-menopausal adults from the definition of life and becoming, in his proposed terms, "organisms" rather than "Lifeforms." Again, I can find not one single citation that accepts conception as the starting point of life. I ask that my opponent produce such citations, if indeed they exist. Until then, I believe we ought to be bound by the universally accepted definitions provided in all major dictionaries. These establish life as beginning at birth and ending at death. Now, my opponent has credited several statements to myself that were never said and are contrary to my assertions. The first is that I believe that unborn babies have no rights. I have made no such statement. Rather, my opponent stated abortion was wrong and unconstitutional because it denies due process to a citizen. I stated the children under the age of majority do not have the same rights as adults under the law. My opponent does not like this, and would have you see it as an evil "status quo" that must be changed. Were we to follow my opponent's advice, toddlers would be casting votes in our elections, preschoolers could drive cars, and first graders could stop at the bar for a cold brew after a long day of finger painting. Children, of necessity, do not hold equal rights with adults. The concept of due process is as applies to adults, and therefore has no bearing on this debate. Next, I have had words directly inserted into my mouth that I promise you did not originate with me. My opponent states that I have asserted that sex is not immoral. I ask you to read back, honorable judges, and note that I said nothing of the sort. I stated that having sexual relations is not illegal, which is a very large distinction. I pointed out that it is not a "high crime" nor subject to the criminal justice system. I stand by this assertion. Since having sex is not crime, it follows that the state has no right to impose a punishment upon anyone for engaging in this behavior. Forcing a woman to risk her health and life by carrying a pregnancy to term is equivalent to imposing a punishment for this legal activity. My opponent takes issue with my argument that the woman suffers, while the man does not. He proposes that the answer to this is to have the male pay a fine or endure community service hours instead. Neither equates to risk of health and life (which is an automatic risk of pregnancy), so neither adequately answers the Equal Protection requirement. Furthermore, as I keep stating, sexual relations are not illegal. Therefore, to impose a fine or community service for such would be ridiculous. We do not punish what is not a crime. If my opponent instead refers to the abortion as being deserving of judicial punishment, I must state that he makes it sound as though you can purchase permission to commit a crime by agreeing to these minor disciplinary actions. Although I find such an idea abhorrent and akin to the purchasing of indulgences by the pre-Reformation church of 700 years ago, at the same time I cannot stop myself from speculating what the "price" would be to firebomb my ex. But I digress. My opponent also relies very heavily, in his argument, upon birth control and the false assumption that women who use birth control do not become pregnant. I would like to presume to offer the information that birth control is not 100% effective. My opponent places the responsibility for using birth control on the female as well, and suggests that the only women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy are either immature or drunk. I find this patently offensive and ask that the judges take special note of those statements. I repeat that the core of my contentions are two-fold. One, that the reasonings provided by my opponent are inherently faulty, and two, that overturning Roe v. Wade would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.