Abortion is unconstitutional under a reasonable reading of the US constitution

Thank you Con. I will respond to your arguments one by one. 1. The founding fathers did not believe all people were created equal. I concede that point, but, as you said, it is not really pertinent to the issue at hand. The 14th Amendment prohibited the denial of the rights to any person regardless of sex or race, so even if the fathers believed in slavery and the suppression of woman (which they might have) then the 14th Amendment addressed this injustice and distributed to all the rights free white property-owning men had originally possessed. Including the right to life from the moment of "creation." 2. Birth control and condoms. What has that got to do with anything? If it kills a "created" person, known at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment as including those persons alive in the womb from conception onwards, then it should be disallowed under my (so far unrefuted) reasoning. 3. Abortions carried out in the 1st trimester, when the baby looks like a "blob," and not a child or human. No, following my conception-onwards reasoning, that is not "ok." Just because a human does not look like a human does not mean he/she isn't a human. Forgive the illustration, but if a man had his arms and legs chopped off and his ears stitched to his thighs, leaving him looking like a monster, would you call him a non-human just because he does not look human? We cannot rely on appearance to define what a person is. This argument, and the one preceding it, has nothing to do with the constitutionality of allowing abortion. 4. Abortion should be permitted in cases involving rape. Again, no constitutional argument. But even so, this argument contains a major fallacy, the "two-wrongs-make-a-right" fallacy. A baby is made through a hurtful and traumatic crime. No one doubts that rape is wrong. But does the woman's trauma justify her to kill a person? No. My opponent's appeal to the emotions should not sway you. The baby possesses a right to life under the Constitution that the woman's right to "privacy" or "emotional health" does not supersede. Only if the woman's own right to life is endangered can an abortion be legitimately considered. While we are on the subject, let me answer your question directly. Would I sentence my wife to "nine months of hell"? Yes. But I would not see it as nine months of hell. I would see it as nine months of redemption. This would certainly not be true of all people, but as for me and my wife I honestly believe that the boy or girl in my wife's womb would be a blessing, a good thing, really the only good thing to come out of that heinous crime. For life is precious, and having a child of your own can be said to be one of the greatest blessings given us on this earth. You can agree or disagree with my response. It is nothing more: my response. But, leaving the Constitution for a minute, I believe it is a more valid response than killing the baby, even to prevent emotional anguish. 5. "Abortion is not the taking of a child, [sic] its [sic] not the taking of a life. Its [sic] the taking of what WOULD BECOME a life. What harm is there in preventing life?" If you aren't taking life, then what are you taking? Didn't you read the Planned Parenthood leaflet quote? Something dies in the womb; we can therefore assume something was "alive" prior to the abortion. You can call the fetus a "lump" or an "organism," but whatever it is, it dies. My opponent has offered up ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that the interpretation of the constitution I offered in the second round was in any way invalid. Adieu. If my opponent wishes to quit at this point I will understand completely.