Roe v. Wade is a very messed-up decision

Once again, I am con, and as such, the BoP is on you, thusly I am not required to posit a constructive case. Also, even given that I may have transcended your rules, which only apply in debates meriting a shared BoP, this does not in any way entail that you have won, since this transgression would fall under conduct, which only counts for 1 pt. However, this is not a transgression, as aforementioned, the framework you put forth, is only intelligible in a debate in which the BoP is shared. Morality:"God is goodness (ie the source of it. "In such case, morality is even more trivial than the constructive dilemma indicates, because all moral actions are essentially reducible to "it's good because good", given that good is not external to God, this would indicate god is synonymous with goodness. This framework is utterly tautological. Either way, I argued that as a necessary entailment, God's law would be categorical, however, I have argued that God's law is not categorical, and thus, divine command theory is not valid. Pro has not addressed this. "Is nature immoral when it causes pain to a child? "No, as I have argued, sentience is necessary for moral discussion. Nature, which you have used rather ambiguously, I presume in the context of climate, is not sentient, and as such, morality is not applicable. Pro states God is the only reason why morality exist? I would disagree, as I have argued, sentience is why morality exists. And what harms sentient creatures can be empirically discerned, absent of God. There need not be an external source, just like math can be said to be objective, without appealing to something external, and as such, morality is of the same nature. Personhood:Pro argues that the criteria of personhood is contingent on the existence of a soul, however pro has failed to demonstrate this, or even define what a soul is. While this is not a philosophy of mind debate, I would argue that the criteria are all mental properties, and such, are contingent upon brains(body), and I see no reason for God to be a prerequisite, nor has pro demonstrated that God is. Pro asserts an even more absurd incarnation of dualism, viz, substance trinitism(body,mind,soul), in which case one encounters 3 interaction problems. How does the brain(body) interact with the mind, and in such case, how does the mind interact with the soul, and as a corollary, how does the brain interact with the soul? This is incoherent? Pro states:"Any human is a person. That is what I would argue, therefore, we ask what is human nature, and then you cannot deny that the baby has human nature in the womb, for if it did not in the womb, then it would not be able to have it outside of the womb. "Human nature denotes propensity, while personhood denotes property. We are not discussing human nature. However, as for personhood, the properties necessary are emergent, thusly produced as the brain develops. To say that these properties must be totally intrinsic is demonstrably false, as I have argued, and provided evidence for the case that 1t fetuses do not have these properties, however babies do, indicating that they are in fact--emergent. SocietalPro drops all contentions except guilt. I didn't say that abortion doesn't cause guilt; I argued that guilt is not sufficient to establish a prohibition. As I stated, many actions I may undertake may cause me guilt, however this does not necessarily entail a prohibition. LiteraryOnce again, the decision, as I have defined it, which pro has showed no objection to, is not ambiguous! It seems to clearly convey that women have the right to terminate pregnancy, by virtue of the right to privacy, within the first trimester, and as for latter states of pregnancy, it is within state jurisdiction. Seems rather clear to me. Constitutionality- Pro never offered an alternate definition of personhood, pro has merely equivocated the terms human and person. This in no way negates my prior discussion, all it would indicate is that the properties for personhood, are indeed necessary to constitute humanity. As such, Legal protection would still not concern 1t fetuses. Precedence- NO. I didn't say don't consider precedence, or respect precedence, I said that precedence is not permanent, and this demonstrably true, when analyzing the progression of law through the nation's history. It was the precedent that blacks were not people, that women could not vote, that gays could be discriminated against,etc. , however we have overturned them. If precedence was permanent, as you seem to be implying, progress would never be made. Once again, your framework can only intelligibly be applied to a debate in which the BoP is shared. Even if it was intelligible in this debate, conduct is only 1pt, and as I have refuted your arguments, and you have not refuted mine, you cannot be the victor. Conclusion:I have argued divine command theory is non-viable and tautological. I have argued that sentience is a necessary condition for moral inquiry and legal protection. I have argued that fetuses are not sentient, and as such are not persons. As an entailment, I have demonstrated that 1t fetuses are not protected under the law, nor of concern in moral discussion. I have argued that the way in which a decision is worded does not negate the validity of it, and that the decision appears to be completely clear. I have argued that precedence is not permanent. Lastly, I noted that the circumstances under which a case is accepted does not negated the procedural, nor substantive validity of its adjudication, or litigation. Pro has not adequately addressed any of these.