Abortion is murder in the US

Before I begin my arguments for this round I feel the need to apologize my my opponents conduct and obvious frustration. I for one do not share Con's attitude that this debate (one that he initiated himself) is 'pointless.' Legal v Lawful It is abundantly clear that Con still believes that anything which is 'legal' is automatically 'lawful.' This has been the biggest sticking point in our debate. So, I will try again this round to present the most irrefutable explanation I can to help Con see that neither laws nor Supreme Court's rulings are infallible. I thought that the injustice of Slavery and the Dred Scott case [1] made this point well enough but I'll try to make the same point another way. Legal is Not Always LawfulIn this earlier DDO debate between my opponent and DDO member Anonymous-Scientist. Though it's not the greatest example for proving this point, I hope it will suffice. In the debate, User 'Anonymous-Scientist' suggested that the punishment for someone convicted of Rape should be castrated [2]. My opponent quickly cited the language of the 8th Amendment that prohibits the use of 'cruel and un-usual punishment.' This is significant and interesting because it shows that my opponent does understand that any law which runs contrary to what the Constitution says would not be 'lawful.' However, I will ask my opponent if he believes that Castration would be 'lawful' if a State were to pass a law making it 'legal' to castrate convicted rapists. I ask our voters to objectively consider how Con's syllogism is wrong - when he claims that "Everything legal is lawful." The evidence shows that Con knows or should know better. That un-Constitutional laws can be passed but they would NOT be lawful if they are un-Constitutional. In his frustration, Con lashes out and claims that my arguments are based upon a moral premise instead of a Constitutional basis. However, that is not the case. Our Constitution says that 'all persons' are entitled to the 'equal protections' of our laws [3]. As I showed in our previous round, that is an objective fact. It is not speculation of conjecture. My opponent lamented:"Abortion is passed and allowed under federal law"True. "Since it is allowed under federal law, the act of abortion a fetus is permitted under law"True again. "Since the act of abortion is allowed under federal law, it is a lawful act."UNLESS that law is itself Un-Constitutional! The fallacious attempt that Con is making is called an "Appeal to Authority [4]." In his view, abortions are legal and Constitutionally justified ONLY because the laws say they are legal. And his response to my challenges of those laws - is to claim that they are the final word unto themselves. That is a classic appeal to authority which is akin to using a Bible as the final word on the validity of itself. Con's claim that "Lawful = conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. . ." is only true if and when the laws are Constitutional. As I cited in my previous round (and as Con showed in his debate about rapists) - an Un-Constitutional Law is not valid and would not be 'lawful.' "Federal laws are also the supreme law of the land if, and only if, they do not conflict with the US Constitution. That fact was also universally accepted by the framers of the Constitution. They made it abundantly clear during the Constitution Convention debates that federal laws are null and void if they conflict with the Constitution. [5]"______________________________________________________R2) Abortion is a constitutional and federal lawIn his arguments, Con posted; "Let's review what my adversary is saying. He is *assuming*, that a child is a person and under a law that is established by the constitution they have the right to life."Con, I am not making an assumption. The FEDERAL fetal homicide laws DEFINE a 'child in the womb in ANY stage of development' as 'a human being.' That is an objective fact. That same FEDERAL law [6] makes it a crime of MURDER to 'intentionally kill' a 'child in the womb' during a criminal act. The definition of murder that Con provided himself (along with others) - also establish the fact that the victims of MURDER under our fetal homicide laws are 'human beings.' As such, they are 'persons.'I ask my opponent and our voters again. "How can it be that a 'child in the womb' is a 'human being / person' enough to be a MURDER victim when they are killed in a criminal act. . . but they are not human beings / persons when their mothers go to an abortion clinic and PAY someone to kill them (sic) legally? _____________________________________The 14th AmendmentMy opponent cites and then attempts to analyze the text of the 14th Amendment. He indicates that he believes it only applies to persons who are born. However, the 14th Amendment only uses the word and condition of being 'born' to establish "Citizenship." It does not say that a 'person' must be 'born' in order to have a right to the 'equal protections' of our laws. This is precisely how our Fetal Homicide Laws come into play. The crime of killing a 'child in the womb' under those laws - is a crime of MURDER. Obviously, a 'child in the womb' that is killed in a crime has not been 'born' yet. Correct? So, I ask my opponent, how a person can be charged with the MURDER of a 'child in the womb' that hasn't been 'born?' The answer and conclusion is simple. "Birth (aka parturition [7]) is NOT the requirement for personhood that Con claims it is. My opponents (confusing) comments in his analysis shows that he does comprehend the language of the FEDERAL "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" at all. Not only does it specifically say that a 'child in the womb' is 'a human being' in 'ANY stage of development . .' it says in the text that Con himself omitted. "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 [6]." SECTION 1111 is the section of the FEDERAL code that pertains to the crimes of MURDER [8]. It is my opponent, Con who is trying to mis-represent the language and the conclusions that can be made from the Federal Fetal Homicide Law (U.S. Code 1814) - Not me. It's strange that my opponent continues to resort to quoting Roe - as an authority unto itself, when it is being challenged. As I stated earlier and in my other debate with YYW [9] - Justice Potter Stewart made the point perfectly clear when Roe was being decided - that a State (or the Federal Government) could later establish personhood for 'children in the womb.[10]'Con can claim that the Constitution is vague. Can he deny that subsequent laws that have been passed in the time since Roe have been less ambiguous? If a murder charge does not establish the fact that it was a human being / person that was killed in a crime... then what does? __________________________________________Self Defense ContinuedIt's clear from my opponents ramblings in his section about self defense - that he didn't read or comprehend my own arguments earlier. I said that I can appreciate and even support the use of 'deadly force' when it can be 'justified' in acts of self defense. My opponent and I just don't agree that all abortions meet the legal criteria for the use of deadly force as an act of self defense. . Con's claims that I have conceded this entire debate by agreeing that some abortions in EXTREME cases might be justified is growing tiresome. All abortions are homicides. Some homicides might be justified (as self defense) while other might not be. It is NOT an 'all or nothing' game (sic). ______________________________Slavery AgainCon again claims that "Slavery was lawful" - during the time that slaves Constitutional rights were being denied and people could "legally" own slaves. He maintains this view despite my many attempts to educate him on his UnConstitutional laws are neither valid nor lawful. I ask my opponent why historical slavery is globally recognized as a "Crime against humanity" if it was (at least in his view) no crime at all - during the time it was 'legal?'______________________My opponent only assumes that his points have not been addressed. They have been and they will continue to be. I await his further consideration of those arguments for this round.[1] Dred Scott - http://www.streetlaw.org...[2] Rapists should be castrated - http://www.debate.org...[3] 14th Amendment - http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4] Appeal to Authority - http://www.nizkor.org...[5] Supremacy Clause - http://constitutionmythbuster.com...[6] 18 U.S. Code § 1841 - http://www.law.cornell.edu...[7] Parturition - http://www.medterms.com...[8] 18 U.S. Code § 1111 (MURDER)- http://www.law.cornell.edu...[9] Debate with YYW - http://www.debate.org...[10] Roe Audio - [11] Crimes against humanity - http://en.wikipedia.org...