Resolved: A fetus' life may be legally sacrificed to protect the life of the mother.

"http://www.uttyler.edu...; -Radiation professionals are required to identify embryos/fetus/nursing child receiving dose of radiation by social security number. "http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:wsQO4Yul1FwJ:www.nilc.org/immspbs/health/Issue_Briefs/Prenatal%2520coverage%2520through%2520SCHIP.pdf+%22fetus+issued+social+security+number%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us" -2003 provision in SCHIP which applies citizenship to unborn fetuses so their undocumented mothers can receive prenatal care. "http://www.leg.state.or.us...; -Rules for the state of Oregon requiring a Social Security Number to be provided for a certificate of death. Rules also requiring a certificate of death for the transportation of a dead fetus for burial. There's more, but I think I satisfied that... so now that that's out of the way... "here in North Carolina, you are not considered legally alive unless you have a birth certificate, period, with no exceptions." -Nothing to do with your first round argument... nothing to do with my rebuttal... "A fetus cannot be alive in one state and not alive in the next." -A fetus is alive by federal law. The murder of a pregnant woman is a double murder and a federal offense. This is not a state issue. "we can clearly see that the life of the mother, who is obviously alive (in any region of the world) takes legal and ethical precedence over the life of the fetus, who may or may not be alive, depending on where you are." -You have not made this point clear, rather you have made affirmative assertions without any legal bearing. I have provided caselaw showing how a fetus is considered alive by federal law, and how is may be considered a citizen by state law- in some cases it has to be recognized before it can by buried. "The united states government is defined in the constitution as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." -Not true. This is a line from Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" speech, not the Constitution. "the government has an obligation to protect its own people, who are members of the social contract, over others." -Even if the line were from the Constitution you can't logically infer this. The statement makes no allusion to protection of the people by the government, nor does it apply a level of importance to the American people over others. Since the statement does not even exist in the Constitution, this statement is moot. "To say a US citizen has no more protections of life or liberty than a non-citizen is simply untrue." -The murder of a non-citizen is treated as murder, not as the "murder of a non-citizen" with lesser penalties. You cannot provide any scenario where the life of a citizen is legally valued over the life of a non-citizen. You can appeal to emotion, but it's not an argument based on fact. Since the burden of proof is on you, I challenge you to provide a source for this argument. "Why would we write the bill of rights in the first place, if not to specifically protect citizens' rights?" -The "Bill of Rights" protects "ANY" person from the deprivation of life, and does not provide any special privelege of life to citizens over non-citizens. Again, I challenge you to provide any source to the contrary. "Non-citizens DO NOT have that guarantee, and thus citizens do indeed have more protections on their life and liberty than other persons." -Indeed this protection is against the detriment of that right imposed by others, ie. murder, and it does apply to non-citizens, per my previous argument on murder. You cannot murder a non-citizen and be treated as less of a criminal that one who murders a citizen. Furthermore, recent caselaw, ie. Guantanamo Bay prisoners, applies certain rights to not only non-citizens, but enemies of the state, terrorists, and enemy combatants, most importantly the right to life- hence the superb healthcare they are offered while imprisoned for crimes against this country. "few cases exist involving undocumented workers" -Not true. There are thousands of documented cases... "there is the example of American foreign policy, and how we value American lives over the lives of foreign nationals." -I believe my own example proves your assertion to be incorrect. "We decided it was justifiable to kill not only the captors of the hostages but also civilians and non-participating members of the Iranian government in order to save American lives, simply because they were American and we had an obligation to value their lives first and foremost." -You can hardly apply laws of "collateral damage" and "rules of engagement" to your case in point. These are extreme circumstances in which even the lives of the saviors are not as valuable as those of the saved. Even in your example an operation was never successfully carried out, and the hostages were eventually released without anyone being harmed. Again, your point is moot. "We have to remember that despite any feelings we might have on the abortion issue or a fetus' right to life, in comparison with the life of the mother, we do have more of an obligation to protect her." -That is not the case in point, nor the premise of your original argument. Case in point- you assert that due to Juris Soli, a fetus has less rights as a citizen than the mother. You assert the fetus is as an illegal immigrant, and therefore has less of a right to life than a US citizen- in this case, the mother. You assert the government is obligated to protect a citizen over a non-citizen... Juris Soli does not apply to unborn fetuses, as they can be considered citizens even before birth as proven by my argument based on SCHIP. A fetus can be issued a social security number as a citizen, and is required in states requiring a death certificat for burial and transport of dead fetuses, and a social security number for a death certificate. Your arguments for importance of life of a citizen over that of non-citizens has been challenged by federal murder laws, which consider a murderer anyone who takes ANY life under malicious means- even the life of a non-citizen by a citizen. You have failed to prove any of your points...