Abortion is murder in the US

Opening CommentAnyone who has followed my recent exchanges with my opponent will note that it has been heated and near the point of hostility. I have decided to accept this challenge as an opportunity to further expound on the arguments that I have presented in my earlier debate with YYW [1] and in the forums [2]. I ask our readers and our prospective voters to remember that a voter in a DDO debate is not expected to vote their bias and or their preference (bias) in a debate. We are expected to vote on conduct, grammar, sources and on which contender posed the strongest arguments. That said, I am not interested in this debate as a was to 'boost my elo' score as my opponent stated as his objective in the comments section of this debate [3]. I have had too many debates vote bombed already on DDO to ever expect a considerate analysis or an objectively sincere outcome again. My interest in these debates is to present the strongest arguments possible to support my views and claims in spite of the ways that I know the pro-abortion majority on DDO [4] will use their vote bombs and multiple accounts to try to discourage them.One of my main objectives in this debate is to get my opponent to explain how a 'child in the womb' as defined by our Federal fetal homicide laws can be a human being / person enough to be recognized as a murdervictim when they are killed in a criminal act [5] - but not how they are not human beings/ persons (worthy of Constitutional protections) in any other situations like when they are being targeted in voluntary abortions.This debate comes down to one thing - "Are the laws which make voluntary abortions legal - lawful?" No-one disputes the fact that abortion is 'legal.' So legality is not what is being challenged. The question is - is it 'lawful.' In my previous debate with YYW, I tried to illustrate this point by using the Dred Scott case and Slavery as an example [6]. In the Dred Scott case, many of the same tactics and language used by the proponents of abortion (today) were used to deny personhood and Constitutional rights to those targeted for slavery. For example this language was used in the Dred Scott to deny rights to slaves; ". . . We think they [people of African ancestry] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . ."— Chief Justice RogerB. Taney, speaking for the majorityNotice how closely the same language was used to deny Constitutional rights to children in the womb -in Roe [7]; ". . .The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause... "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, in the Apportionment Clause, in the Migration and Importation provision, in the Emolument Clause, in the Electors provisions, in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, in the Extradition provisions, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.All this, together with our observation,supra,that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. . ." -MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, speaking for the majorityI ask my opponent, can we all agree now in hindsight that our Supreme Court got it wrong in the Dred Scott case? We now have laws which make it a crime of murder - to criminally kill a 'child in the womb.' Those laws which were NOT present when the Roe decision was made - now define a human fetus as 'a child in the womb.[5]' Furthermore, when the United States Supreme Court was deciding Roe, Justice Potter Stewart speculated [8]; ________________________________________Justice Potter Stewart: Well, 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?Mrs. Weddington [9]: I would have a very difficult case. [Laughter]Justice Potter Stewart: You certainly would because you’d have the same kind of thing you’d have to say that this would be the equivalent to after the child was born.Mrs. Weddington: That’s right.________________________________________In the forty plus years since Justice Stewart's speculations, our Federal Government and now more than 35 States [10] have enacted laws which define and recognize a 'child in the womb' as a human being and as a person - by making it a crime of murder to kill a 'child in the womb' in a criminal act [5]. In the years since the passing of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide laws, several people have already been arrested and convicted for their crimes against 'children in the womb' and although almost every murder conviction is subject to automatic appeals. . . to date, the Supreme Court has declined the chance to overturn those murder convictions and / or the chance to rule on the Constitutionality of our Fetal Homicide Laws [12]. The conclusion that leads to the allegation that 'Abortion is Murder' is Constitutionally based upon the findings that I have listed so far. My opponent may try to claim that my conclusions and allegations are baseless. However, I hope that our prospective voters will consider that these conclusions were also predicted by abortion proponents themselves. For example, prior to the passing of the Federal "Unborn Victims of Violence Act [5]," former Planned Parenthood President - Gloria Feldt - predicted; "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot, [12]" She understood, as Sarah Weddington did, that the recognition and the establishing of the personhood of 'children in the womb' would automatically (Constitutionally) make abortions a crime of murder. It is inevitable that our Supreme Court will one day have to reconcile the language and convictions for murder under our nations fetal homicide laws with their earlier rulings like Roe.The Supreme Court (like my opponent) will be asked to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough for a killer to be charged with MURDER for killing them in a criminal act. . . but not person enough to be afforded their 5th and 14th Amendment right to the EQUAL protections of our laws in any other time or circumstance.I await my opponents responses. [1] DDO debate with YYW - http://www.debate.org...[2] DDO Forum - http://www.debate.org...[3] Comments - http://www.debate.org...[4] DDO's Pro-Abortion Bias - http://www.debate.org...[5] Federal Fetal Homicide Law - http://www.law.cornell.edu...[6] Dred Scott - http://www.streetlaw.org...[7] Roe v wade - http://www.law.cornell.edu...[8] Oral Arguments - http://stacytrasancos.com...[9] Sarah Weddington - http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] States Fetal Homicide Laws - http://www.ncsl.org...[11] Upheld Convictions - http://www.nrlc.org...[12] Constitutional Challenges - http://www.nrlc.org...[13] Gloria Feldt - http://www.newsweek.com...