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

Kohai, thanks again for this exchange and for staying focused on the subject of this debate.In round one, my opponent posted: "Imagine that you are pregnant, but that the baby cannot live. (a) Would you be willing to allow that baby to die in a quick death or in a slow and painful death? (b) What if the fetus puts your life at risk? (c) Will you be willing to sacrifice your life for a baby that, most likely, will not live anyway?"These questions have nothing to do with whether or not "legalized elective abortion" is a violation of the Constitution. In fact, didn't my opponent just reminded everyone in his previous response that "this debate is NOT if abortion should be legal, nor is this about the morality of abortion. Rather, this is about if legalization of abortion is a violation of the constitution?" My personal preferences are not pertinent to this debate. As PRO said, "this is about the Constitution and the facts." It is not about me or any of my personal preferences. I digress. To restate his question in a way that does pertain to this debate, I would word it as such: "Chuz Life if elective induced abortions are not Constitutional, does that mean that all abortions should be banned?" To which, I would answer NO. However, I prefer to debate the Constitutionality of those "exceptions" separately.________Pro then tried to rebut the Legal definition for "person." This is their definition of a person.1: "natural person"2: the body of a human being also: the body and clothing of a human being Example: had drugs on his person3: one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties (see also juridical person legal person personality) Pro went on to say; "It is important to note that according to definition 2, a fetus does qualify as a human being. However, according to definition 1, it does not qualify as a human being." PRO. How many definitions does it take for a word to have applicability? I'm asking sincerely, though I also have to tell you the answer is "only ONE."It only takes one definition of a word, for the word AND it's definition to be appropriate. And Kohai himself just acknowledged that definition #2 (a human body) does in fact 'qualify' a human fetus LEGALLY as a "person." _____PRO said: "According to definition 3, it also does not qualify as a fetus is not recognized by law that is subject to rights and duties."I wonder if Pro has already dismissed or forgotten the link that I provided, regarding the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" and how unborn children ARE in fact already being recognized by our laws under the protections of that act? It appears that he has. ____Pro then said; "As per my opponent's source, I have already shown why a fetus may qualify as the scientific definition of Homeosapien, but not the legal status and not in deserving of legal rights. Therefore, his definition has no basis."I'm afraid, I can't let my opponent off that easy. The definition DOES apply as he just admitted. As to Pros comment; "deserving of rights?" I can not find in my reading of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights anything that supports his claim that the basic human rights have to be "deserved."I ask my opponent; "Where do you get that idea (that basic human rights must be deserved) from?__________Pro claims that my use of the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" as a means to show that prenatal children in some cases ARE already recognized as "persons" is a " straw man argument to the hightest degree." He then begs the question by using the very law he just denounced by saying " According to the current law (which is what my opponent is arguing for), only a mother has the right to abort the child. It is her choice and thus the law protects the unborn against an unjust crime and a mother who may or may not want the fetus to be killed."Apparently my opponent considers the Unborn Victims of a Violence Act a "strawman" attempt when I use it to show that prebirth children can be and ARE being recognized as "persons" but, it should the act is somehow ok to support HIS claims... because the act (for now) allows for women to abort.Again, I ask the readers to consider the disparity in that. _________ My opponent claims that my arguments do not "in any way, prove that abortion is unconstitutional." The proof that Induced Elective Abortions are Un-constitutional is found in the fact that at least ONE of the legal definitions for "person hood" is in fact applicable to prenatal children. (#2 "the body of a human being")The 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution says: "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (paraphrased)The 14th Amendment says that; "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."I think my opponent will agree that if a child in the womb is a "person?" They are Constitutionally protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments. That, if they are NOT being protected? Their Constitutional rights are in fact being violated.____________Pro summarized my views like this: P1: Fetuses are human beings (i.e.., members of the biological species Homo sapiens).P2: All human beings have the same basic rights, especially the right-to-life.P3: Human fetuses have a right to live. (from 1 and 2)P4: Abortion directly kills an innocent human being.C: Abortion violates the fetus' right to life and is therefore immoral. (from 3 and 4)That's close. But I prefer this: P1: Human beings who are in the earliest stages of their lives are human beings (i.e., members of the biological species Homo sapiens).P2: All human beings have the same basic rights, especially the right-to-life.P3: Human Beings who are in the fetal stage of their lives have a Constitutional right to their lives. (from 1 and 2)P4: An abortion directly kills an innocent human being.C: Elective Induced Abortions violate the fetus' right to life and is therefore immoral. Un-Constitutional (from 3 and 4)__________My opponent lamented; "If anti-abortion arguments are constructed in this way, strong objections can be raised against the notion that all human beings have a right to life. (This is an un-supported claim by my opponent) Professor Michael Tooley, a distinguished philosopher at the University of Colorado, has pointed out that humans with complete upper brain death do not possess a serious right to life: they are, for all relevant legal and moral purposes, already dead at that stage.[2] In other words, killing a brain-dead human is not prima facie seriously wrong,nor is it unconstitutional since a brain-dead human doesn't have a right to life in the first place. "The ability to deny basic human rights is not in and of itself proof that said rights do not exist. The Constitution (5th & 14th) says that all "persons" have a right to their lives and to the equal protection of our laws. "ALL persons" is an INCLUSIVE statement. It is not an exclusive statement._______Pro concluded; " We are debating the legal status of abortion: Is abortion unconstitutional? that is the resolution. My opponent has failed to provide any evidence that abortion is unconstitutional according to today's law. IF I can provide just ONE instance in which abortion should be legal, then I win this debate. My opponent has failed to respond to my arguments about when abortion needs to be legal and failed to respond to my questions."I am providing ample proof to make my case. My citations include the Unborn victims of Violence Act, the Baby K case and other legal precedents, legal definitions and the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution itself. I note that Pro has yet to respond to the Baby K case that I shared to rebut the idea that the ability to be sentient, breathe, etc... is a Constitutional requirement for "personhood." Does my opponent now agree that there is no such Constitutional requirement?