This House Concludes that Abortion is Murder

"To win this debate, my opponent had to demonstrate that, legally, abortion is murder. I have prevented him from doing so, therefore I have already won. Nonetheless, once more, thanks to my opponent for this and to all judges who may read it..."YYW, this debate is not over and you haven't prevented me from doing anything. So far, we have only debated the 'allegation' aspect of the debate and you seem to be hung up on that. That may be due to the fact that you feel laws and the courts have it all right - with regards to the legality of abortion. But there some points that I haven't challenged you with, yet. 1. The Constitutionality of the laws that (for now) keep abortion legal. 2. The Constitutionality of the past Supreme Court's Rulings3. The fact that 'Children in the womb' in 'any stage of development' are now being legally recognized as 'human beings' by laws passed since Roe v Wade and the Case you cited last round. 4. The fact that an Un-Constitutional Law is an Un-Lawful law... etc. As I also posted in the comments section - I admire your confidence YYW. However I think that you were a bit premature in declaring for yourself a victory in this debate this way. If that kind of conduct was evident in your previous debates, I probably wouldn't have selected you for my opponent on this one. I thought that you would be above that sort of thing. I digress. My opponent raises some interesting points in his responses last round and I'm anxious to get started with my own counters. Con, in your summary about the comparison between the claim that "Meat is Murder" and the claim that "Abortion is Murder..." You seem to have missed the point of my comparison. While there may in fact be an 'ought' aspect to both.. that was not the comparison being made. The comparison was to explain how the claims are allegations against perceived unjust laws. It is not simply that people who oppose abortions think there 'ought' to be laws against it. When we make the claim that "abortion is murder," we are making a claim about the Constitutionality of the laws which permit it. It might help if Con would consider how the actions and challenges against abortion are very much like those against DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act. ) I ask my opponent; Is it a simple preference that the laws defining marriage 'ought' to be changed? Or is the demand for change based on the allegation that the laws which prohibit gay marriages are Un-Constitutional and as such - Unlawful?I may or may not agree completely with the proponents of gay marriages but that's not the point of this comparison. Gay marriage proponents like "Animal Rights" proponents like "Right to Life Proponents" all believe that our laws 'ought' to be changed. They also all believe that the laws they are opposed to are unjust, unconstitutional and "unlawful."So, the question for this debate is;1. How are the laws which (for now) allow for abortions - unlawful? (how are they unconstitutional?)The ArgumentsThe basis for my claim that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of our land comes from article six of the Constitution itself."This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Article VI, U.S. Constitution[1]In Marbury v Madison, our Supreme Court said; "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."[2]I hope my opponent agrees that an Un-Constitutional law is an Un-Lawful law.In our previous round, Con posted; "abortion is the unlawful killing of one person by another person." I think it obvious and to be fair to my opponent, Con probably intended to say that "murder is the unlawful killing..." I can appreciate the slip but it's clear what my opponent intended to say.Con added; "In order for abortion to be murder, abortion must satisfy two components: it's got to be unlawful, and it's got to entail the killing of another human being."That statement is absolutely correct and it is very much what this debate is all about!I understand that Con believes that the case "Planned Parenthood of South Eastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) offers clarity to both of those elements" and I'm certain that there are many others who share that belief with him. However, I implore everyone who reads this debate to try to maintain an open mind all the way through to the end. I call on our readers to consider the fact that not even our Supreme Court is infallible in their rulings. They have on occasion been wrong and even Un-Constitutional in their rulings before. [3] The United States Supreme Court has had to reverse their earlier rulings more than once, in the history of our nation.That said, previous Supreme Courts Rulings do matter greatly in these debates. The Court's rulings are the law of the land for as long as they last and unless and until they are revisited and changed... they are the law.But what if the Supreme Court has it wrong? What if their ruling or rulings on a particular issue in a case like Con cited is Un-Constitutional?Would it be just?Would it be lawful?My answer is No!I submit that our Supreme Court has it just as wrong with Abortion today as they did with Slavery over 100 Years ago and I will again present the reasons why. Additionally, I hope that my opponent will take notice of the numerous laws that have been passed in the time since the Supreme Court's ruling that he cited. Laws which add even more credence to the claim that 'Abortion is Murder.'From the day the Roe v Wade decision was handed down until today, our nation has remained just about evenly divided on whether or not we want abortion to remain legal[5]. Con argues (I think) correctly - that at the time Casey and Roe was being decided - our Justices did not believe a child in the womb as a human being / person or worthy of the equal protections of our laws as required by our Constitution. However, they did seem to know that "it could be established that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a "person" and as such - they would be entitled to the equal protections of our laws.During the oral argument proceedings of Roe v Wade, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart asked Sarah Weddington (Jane Roe's Attorney); "... if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?" [6]To which Sarah Weddington responded with; " I would have a very difficult case!" My opponent should know that Justice Stewart's words have not fallen on deaf ears! In the 40 years since the Roe v Wade Decision, more and more States have been incrementally establishing the 'personhood' status of 'children in the womb.' [7] These efforts also eventually resulted in the FEDERAL Fetal Homicide law being passed under the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" [8]"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed TWO human victims. " [9]As I have shown in my earlier rounds, we already have the laws in place to charge individuals with MURDER in cases where they illegally and criminally abort a 'child in the womb.' Those laws (passed since Roe) already LEGALLY define children in the womb as children and as "human beings" [8] When we have laws which not only define a human fetus as a "human being in ANY stage of development..." [8] and those laws (State and Federal) already make it a crime of MURDER to criminally abort a child in the womb... I submit that my burden of proof has already been met. However, I do hope to expand on these observations even more - Next Round! Thanks again to all who are following this debate! [1] Article VI - http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] Marbury V Madison - http://takebackthepower.us...[3] Dred Scott - http://www.pbs.org...[4] Previous DDO Debate - http://www.debate.org...[5] National Trend - http://www.gallup.com...[6] Roe v Wade Audio Transcript - http://stacytrasancos.com...[7] States Fetal Homicide Laws - http://www.ncsl.org...[8] 18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children - http://www.law.cornell.edu...[9] NRTL - Comments on the UVVA - http://www.publiceye.org...