Abortion is murder in the US

Round 2 - RebuttalsIt's good to see that my opponent agrees with me when I say that " This debate comes down to the question - "Are the laws which make voluntary abortions legal - lawful? [R1] " I am anxious to see if I can get Con to agree that Un-Constitutional laws are unlawful laws. My opponent begins this round with a semantic argument about legal terms and with an attempt to argue that all that is legal is also lawful. Though that is not what my opponent claims directly, that is the gist of what he is getting at. Where Con claims that " For something to be unlawful it is the absence of what is lawful, and lawful is something that is permitted by laws. Abortion under federal law, is allowed in the united States. . . " He is only partially correct. My opponent has either ignored or omitted the significance of the Constitutionality of the laws in question. Indeed, using my opponent's logic, Slavery would be considered 'lawful' by him today if laws were simply passed again to make it 'legal' again - to buy, sell and to own human beings. As though basic human and Constitutional rights can be 'lawfully' legislated away. I ask my opponent and our voters how the Constitutionality of any law can ever be challenged - if the only requirement for something to be 'lawful' is for it to be 'legal?'In my opinion, Constitutionality matters. For my opponent's syllogism at the beginning of this round to be valid, all the laws being cited would have to first be Constitutional. I contend that the laws which make it legal to deprive a 'child in the womb' of their Constitutional right to the Equal Protections of our laws are themselves contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Un-Constitutional laws are Unlawful laws [2]. Where Con claims that I am mistaking unlawful for "morally correct" Nothing could be further from the truth. My concerns in this debate have nothing to do with morality or with the moral aspects of abortion. While Con is partially correct when he surmises that my 'entire argument hinges around whether or not a fetus is a person and if a fetus is a person.' I do not argue that it is 'morally wrong to kill them.' I only argue that it is OBJECTIVELY a violation of the child's basic human and Constitutional rights. I argue that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a 'person' and that it is unlawful and Un-Constitutional to deny to them the Equal Protections of our laws. Would that my opponent could appreciate the difference between a moral argument and an objective Constitutional observation. Con's claim that "Abiding by the law is being lawful. . ." is only a true statement when the laws actually conform to our Constitution. We (the people) have no right to violate the Constitutional rights of others and to then shield our actions behind un-Constitutional laws. Do we? --------------------------------------Self Defense - response In my opponent's 'self defense' argument, he again begins with the claim that an abortion can not possibly be 'unlawful' if and when abortions are 'legal.' He never considers the Constitutionality of the abortion laws (rulings) in his argument(s).For what it is worth to my opponent, I am a very strong advocate for the right that we all have to defend ourselves and also to defend the lives of others. This includes the right to defend the rights and lives of 'children in the womb.'It is erroneous thinking to claim that 'everyone has a right to defend their self' while excluding any human beings (including the weakest among us) from that list.Con uses some peculiar language in his arguments about abortion and 'self defense.' My opponent refers to the pregnant woman - during an 'ectopic pregnancy' as "the MOTHER." He says in his claim that "she has the right to defend her body and kill the baby if so desired."I thank Con for his recognition of the fact that her child in the womb is her "baby" but I have to ask my opponent why he feels that "babies" are not entitled to the same Constitutional "equal protections" of our laws that the 'mother' is? Does my opponent claim to be an advocate for 'equal rights?' If so, how do you explain / justify the exclusion? Why does the mother have a right to the of her life and body - but her child (baby) does not have the same?How is that in any way - "equal rights?"Now, I must correct some of Con's claims that he made in his "Note" section. While my opponent is correct when he concludes that my view is that "abortion is objectively unlawful. . . " Con is incorrect in the next part when he says "Meaning that abortions are always unlawful, because they are not abiding by the law."It may surprise my opponent to learn that I do not hold the view that ALL abortions are unlawful / murders. It's true that all human abortions are homicides. However, I do not deny that homicides in some cases can be legally and (especially) Constitutionally justified. I have never once claimed that ALL abortions are murders or that they are ALL unlawful, unconstitutional or unjustified.Pro does not challenge the fact that there are certain (rare) medical situations where allowing a pregnancy to continue to term may result in grave bodily harm and / or the death of the mother. Pro does not deny that there are or may be cases where an abortion CAN be both legally and Constitutionally justified. Those are the exceptions. They are NOT the abortions that I am claiming are UnConstitutional, Unlawful and Murderous. If my opponent wants to claim that ALL abortions are acts of self defense, then we need to delve deeper into the details of what the criteria for the use of deadly force in an act of self defense really is. I am more than prepared for that discussion. I hope Con will agree that the right to self defense does not include the right to lure or to entrap someone into a position against ourselves, that we all have a duty to use deadly force ONLY as a last resort and that we do not have the right to use 'excessive force.'_______________________The Non-ConcessionAs for my opponent's claim that I am conceding this debate by acknowledging the fact that abortions are 'legal?' I don't know how many times I have to repeat the fact that 'legal' and 'lawful' are not always the same thing. Slavery is the strongest example that I can give for how something can be both 'legal' and 'unlawful' at the same time. My opponent's semantic arguments to the contrary not withstanding. _______________________About Slavery Where Con claims that slavery was 'lawful' prior to the time it was abolished, I can't disagree more. My opponent is seems to believe that the Un-Constitutional denial of a persons rights can be made 'lawful' by simply passing a law that denies to them their rights. That is the opposite of how our Justice system is supposed to work. In the United States, the Constitutional rights of the minorities are protected against the whims of the majority. It is an objective fact that our 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution - establish the rights of all persons to the equal protections of our laws. It is not simply a 'want' based on morality. If a 'child in the womb' is a 'person' - then they are OBJECTIVELY automatically entitled to the equal protections of our laws.It is an objective fact - that our fetal homicide laws define a 'child in the womb' AS a 'child in the womb' and make it a crime of 'murder' to intentionally kill one in a criminal act. It is also not simply a want based on morality. It is also an objective fact (not a want based on morality) that several people have already been arrested, charged and convicted of the MURDERS of children in the womb by criminal abortions [3].In those cases, even if my opponent does not agree that any other abortions are murders. . . Con must agree that those abortions are murders and that makes the statement "abortion is murder" - objectively true (at least) for those cases. ____________________________Hypocrisy? It's strange to see my opponent attribute things to me that I have never claimed. I have never claimed that 'personhood' begins at 'implantation.' In fact, I have a debate here on DDO where I have argued extensively against that claim. The personhood for 'children in the womb' is established by the fact that our FEDERAL Fetal Homicide Law not only recognizes and defines a 'child in the womb' AS "a child in the womb in ANY stage of development!" and as "a human being" - the FEDERAL LAW also already makes it a crime of 'MURDER' to 'intentionally kill' one in a criminal act. And again, that is an objective fact and it's not simply a want based upon morality. The definition of murder that Con provided himself is; "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." It is by making it a crime of murder to kill a 'child in the womb' in a criminal act - that the personhood of the child killed is being established. My opponent may be quick to point out the fact that our fetal homicide laws (for now) make exceptions to keep abortions "legal." However, as I showed earlier - legality does not always make something 'lawful' in the way my opponent claims. I ask my opponent and our voters; "Are UnConstitutional laws - LAWFUL laws?" My answer is no. Because, "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. . . [4]"[R1] Con's Arguments Round One[2] Constitutional Law - http://freedom-school.com...[3] Abortion Pancake - http://aattp.org...[4] When a Law is not a Law - https://supreme.justia.com...