The (U.S.) Constitutionality of Legalized Abortions on Demand

I would like to state for the record that I issued the challenge and that you accepted. Your opening remark seems to have it the other way around. I would also like to make it known that I am a male. I am not a 'she. ' These are trivial details, I know. So, please do not take offense to my corrections. It's not like they are Germaine to the issue. __________________________________________________ My opponent is correct in his observation that I do in fact consider a human being who is in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development to be a "person. " The current LEGAL definition for what is legally known as a "natural person" is "a human being. " (link; . http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com...) I'll note for my opponent that the legal definition does not add any other criteria that has to be met for a human being to be LEGALLY considered to be a person, other than they be a "human being. " There is no legal requirement for an ability to breathe, to have brainwaves or an ability to feel pain. There is also no legal requirement that the human being be 'born. ' Take for example, "the Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (Link; . http://news.findlaw.com...) The Unborn Victims of Violence Act already recognizes the "person hood" of prebirth children killed in over 60 listed acts of violence where the attacker can be charged with MURDER if the child is killed in a criminal act. I ask the voters reading this, to contemplate for yourselves how a child in the womb in the event it is killed in an act of violence can be considered a "person" and their killer can be charged with MURDER. .. . while the same child in the same womb killed by it's mother for what ever reason SHE decides is necessary for her needs is somehow something LESS than a person. This disparity alone should cast doubt about the Constitutionality of abortion on demand. __________________________________________________ My opponent continued, saying; " Since my opponent wishes to use the constitution and laws as HIS method of fighting abortion, I will use the same to defend a pro-choice stance. " I will thank my opponent to stay focused on the debate at hand. We are debating the Constitutionality of Legalized (induced) abortion on demand and nothing else. Defending the "pro-choice stance" is only Germaine to this debate in so much as it can be supported by and tied directly to the Constitution itself. This debate is not either of our "wishes" nor our motives. This debate is solely about the United States Constitution and how it pertains to the abortion issue. ___________________________________________________ My opponent (Kohai) contended: " 1: A fetus does not have the legal status of a person. " Aside from the fact that it is considered "circular reasoning" to use a fact as justification for itself, I would like to point it out that my opponent is also somewhat mistaken in his claim. As cited earlier, "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" actually DOES acknowledge and establish the legal status of person hood to 'children' who are in the fetal stages of their life. QUOTE: "`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. " So, we now have the above from the Unborn Victims of Violence act and the above provided LEGAL definition of "persons" and we can add them both to the fact that an attacker who kills unborn child while committing certain criminal acts can be and will be charged with MURDER. My opponent must dismiss all of the above and resort to "circular logic" in order to maintain his conclusion; That a human child in the fetal stages of their life "does not have the legal status of a "person. " If the existing law is the final word on what is or what is not a "person" under our Constitution, what is the use in debating it any further? (see. begging the question: . http://nizkor.org...) Of course, our present laws are not infallible and they are not the final word on what is and is not "Just" under our Constitution. __________________________________________________ My opponent (PRO) continued by saying: " In the book, On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, philosopher Mary Anne Warren detailed five psychological criteria for person hood. According to her, these qualities include consciousness and in a particulary sentience, the capacity to reason, self-motivate activity, the capacity to communicate messages, and lastly, the presence of self-concepts" Using Mrs. Warren's "philosophy" my wife was not a "person" nor entitled to the Constitutional protection of her rights by our laws, for more than THREE weeks while she was in a Coma following her cardiac arrest. She was completely without "consciousness, sentience, the capacity to reason, self motivate, communicate and had no awareness of her "self. " It's worth noting that even the most typical human child in the womb has a better prognosis than she had. Consider too, the "Baby K" case. (link: . http://www.stanford.edu...) and others where children are born with "anencephalia. " They are born without the majority of their brains and skulls. The short summary of "Baby K's" case is that she required extensive medical care and resuscitation's and the Federal Courts ruled in Baby K's mothers favor that her child was a 'person' and just as entitled to Emergency Medical Treatment as any other person would be. Even with the fact that the child was destined to die, and could not possible exhibit ANY of the so called requirements for "person hood" posed by Mr. s Warren or my opponent. ______________________________________________________ My opponent (PRO) continued with: "My arguments can be summed up as followed: P1: Only a person has a right to life. << PRO, I would like to see some objective material support for this claim. >> P2: An entity is a person if it has (1) consciousness, (2) the capacity to reason, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate messages, and (5) the presence of self-concepts. << Those criteria for personhood are NOT present in the United States Constitution, the Legal Dictionaries, and certainly not in "The Unborn victims of Violence Act. " Will my opponent please provide a credible and objective source to support this claim? Or in light of the materials I have so far provided, concede to the fact that the five requirements you have presented are only a matter of personal preference or opinion? >> P3: A human fetus does not have properties (1-5). < > P4: Therefore, a human fetus is not a person. (from 2 and 3) << Hopefully after reading this response, my opponent will agree that this conclusion was a bit off >> C: Therefore, a human fetus does not have a right to life. (from 1 and 4) << Again, see my last. You are very solid in your opinions, Kohai and I respect the way that you have presented your arguments so far. This is shaping up to be a very informative if not productive exchange. Thank you in advance for considering my comments. I await your most considerate responses. >>