Roe v. Wade was a decision by the Supreme Court with no reasonable Constitutional basis

I'll start with constitutional interpretation. Pro argues for some version of originalism, asking whether the right to abortion has some basis in the Constitution's "original intent." But that isn't the only or best theory of constitutional interpretation. In fact, most judges, lawyers, and academics don't follow an originalist approach.I argue for a nonoriginalist theory of interpretation, which focuses on the principles underlying the constitutional text rather than the specific intent of the framers. Thus, for example, the 8th Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments" is judged by contemporary application of these concepts, not by how people living in 1791 would have applied those concepts and principles. In 1791, public flogging was acceptable; today it's cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional. The constitutional text does not change without Article V amendment. But the conditions surrounding the text are always changing; new problems are discovered and new forms of social conflict are generated. As a result, new questions constantly arise over how to apply the Constitution in new contexts. Originalism doesn't help solve these questions because its "original intent" doesn't speak to them.As a dramatic example of the above point, consider the most esteemed judicial opinion in American history, Brown v. Board of Education. Holding that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional, Brown is indisputably nonoriginalist. If the 14th amendment had been thought, in 1868, to forbid racial segregation of schools, it would not have been ratified. On originalist grounds, Brown was decided incorrectly. But on nonoriginalist grounds, the decision followed from the principle of equality that underlies the 14th amendment. From a nonoriginalist perspective, Roe v. Wade clearly has a reasonable constitutional basis. Two principles underlie the 14th Amendment: liberty and equality. Criminalization of abortion limits both. That fact alone is enough to prove that Roe v. Wade has a reasonable constitutional basis.Liberty. When the state bans abortion, it effectively forces some women to become mothers or to give up sexual intercourse (because contraception is not always effective). Thus, banning abortion limits women's liberty by denying them the liberty to choose whether to become mothers. This poses a significant burden on women's liberty, because becoming a parent imposes a number of obligations, including years of child care. Equality. Men don't have any special obligation to surrender their bodies to bear children. Criminalization of abortion thus limits women's equality by forcing them to surrender their bodies to bear children, even when it would endanger their life and their health. Indeed, women forced to become a parent may have to commit years of child care (beyond the 9 months of pregnancy), and for many women, increased social and economic dependence on men. That places women in an unequal position in relation to men, who don't have any special obligations to bear children or become parents.The 14th amendment's underlying principles -- liberty and equality -- provide a reasonable constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade's holding -- that there is a constitutional right to abortion. Furthermore, even in the absence of Roe v. Wade, most states today would still protect some kind of right to abortion. According to public opinion polls, less than twelve states would outlaw abortion. That suggests most of the public now regards abortion as a basic right among the guarantees of citizenship. This is further evidence that under a nonoriginalist interpretation of the Constitution, Roe v. Wade was decided correctly. Given the widespread support for nonoriginalism -- including most judges, lawyers, and academics -- nonoriginalist interpretation provides at the very least a "reasonable constitutional basis" for Supreme Court decisions, including Roe v. Wade. Pro cannot win this debate unless he can show that nonoriginalism does not offer a "reasonable constitutional basis" for Supreme Court decisions. That's nearly an impossible task, given the widespread support that nonoriginalism receives. The standard here is "reasonableness," and a theory of constitutional interpretation with as much support as nonoriginalism is certainly reasonable as a way to interpret the Constitution.That said, even from an originalist perspective, Roe v. Wade has a reasonable constitutional basis. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to abortion, many rights are implied via original intent. For example, the right to privacy has been inferred on the basis of multiple provisions in the Constitution. Pro does not argue against the right to privacy, so there is no debate (as far as I understand) that original intent can encompass implied rights.There is at least some evidence that the drafters of the 14th amendment had a right to abortion in mind. The common law made abortion a crime after quickening, but not before. Quickening is the point where a fetus's movements could be felt by a pregnant womann, usually between the fourth and fifth month (kinda like a functional equivalent to viability, the modern test for when women still have a right to abortion).Pro argues that the 14th amendment did not include a right to abortion because the American Medical Association did not support abortion in 1868. But the AMA's opinion has nothing to do with the "original intent" behind the 14th amendment. Pro offers no evidence that the framers or adopters of the 14th amendment sought to enact a principle that would alter common law views about abortion. Nor does Pro offer any evidence that the framer and adopters supported the criminalization of abortion. Furthermore, Pro doesn't mention that most abortion statutes passed at the time -- including the Texas statute at issue in Roe v. Wade, enacted in 1854 -- criminalized abortions performed on women but did not punish women who self-aborted. In other words, the point of abortion laws in the 19th century seems to have been about protecting women from botched abortions by incompetent doctors; the right to abortion was still partially protected by allowing women to self-abort. Given the advances in medical science and the competency of doctors, the concern over botched abortions in the 19th century is no longer a pressing concern. This fact easily explains the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in relation to these abortion laws.To conclude, nonoriginalism's focus on the principles underlying the 14th amendment offers a reasonable constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade. I win the debate on that point alone. But even from an originalist perspective, Roe v. Wade has some support -- it rests on the common law tradition, which is the background against which the drafters of the Constitution always operate. Without explicit evidence that the drafters sought to alter the common law, the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the common law and the text's underlying principles of liberty and equality.