The (U.S.) Constitutionality of Legalized Abortions on Demand

Thank you, Chuz-Life, for your rebuttal. I wish to remind all readers who are reading this that this debate is NOT if abortion should be legal, nor is this about the morality of abortion. Rather, this is about if legalization of abortion is a violation of the constitution. I contend that it is not a violation of the constitution.Considering my opponent has not yet responded to my views on when and why abortion should be legal, those arguments still stand. If I can show just ONE case in which abortion should be legal under both the constitution and morals, then I request a vote for PRO. The current LEGAL definition for what is legally known as a "natural person" is "a human being." (link;http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com......) I'll note for my opponent that the legal definition does not add any other criteria that has to be met for a human being to be LEGALLY considered to be a person, other than they be a "human being." There is no legal requirement for an ability to breathe, to have brainwaves or an ability to feel pain. There is also no legal requirement that the human being be 'born.'According to my opponent's own source, the legal definition for a natural being is as followed (note that my opponent only gives what a natural human is):: a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law This is their definition of a person. [1]. 1: "natural person" 2: the body of a human being also : the body and clothing of a human being Example: had drugs on his person 3: one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties (see also juridical person legal person personality) It is important to note that according to definition 2, a fetus does qualify as a human being. However, according to definition 1, it does not qualify as a human being. According to definition 3, it also does not qualify as a fetus is not recognized by law that is subject to rights and duties.As per my opponent's source, I have already shown why a fetus may qualify as the scientific definition of Homeosapien, but not the legal status and not in deserving of legal rights. Therefore, his definition has no basis.Take for example, "the Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (Link; http://news.findlaw.com......) The Unborn Victims of Violence Act already recognizes the "person hood" of prebirth children killed in over 60 listed acts of violence where the attacker can be charged with MURDER if the child is killed in a criminal act.This is a straw man argument to the hightest degree. This does not prove a fetus is protected with the constitution. According to the current law (which is what my opponent is arguing for), only a mother has the right to abort the child. It is her choice and thus the law protects the unborn against an unjust crime and a mother who may or may not want the fetus to be killed. Remember: I have not defended nor endorced the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."I ask the voters reading this, to contemplate for yourselves how a child in the womb in the event it is killed in an act of violence can be considered a "person" and their killer can be charged with MURDER.... while the same child in the same womb killed by it's mother for what ever reason SHE decides is necessary for her needs is somehow something LESS than a person. This disparity alone should cast doubt about the Constitutionality of abortion on demand.See above. This is a strawman argument and appeal to emotion (see above). This does not, in any way, prove that abortion is unconstitutional. Abortion is done at the consent of the parent--NOT at the force of anyone else. I believe that this is a summary of my opponent's arguments:P1: Fetuses are human beings (i.e., members of the biological species Homo sapiens).P2: All human beings have the same basic rights, especially the right-to-life.P3: Human fetuses have a right to live. (from 1 and 2)P4: Abortion directly kills an innocent human being.C: Abortion violates the fetus' right to life and is therefore immoral. (from 3 and 4)If anti-abortion arguments are constructed in this way, strong objections can be raised against the notion that all human beings have a right to life. Professor Michael Tooley, a distinguished philosopher at the University of Colorado, has pointed out that humans with complete upper brain death do not possess a serious right to life: they are, for all relevant legal and moral purposes, already dead at that stage.[2] In other words, killing a brain-dead human is not prima facie seriously wrong,nor is it unconstitutional since a brain-dead human doesn't have a right to life in the first place. My opponent then accuses me of circular logic. How is it circular logic if we are arguing on the premise of the CURRENT law? | CONCLUSION |We are debating the legal status of abortion: Is abortion unconstitutional? that is the resolution. My opponent has failed to provide any evidence that abortion is unconstitutional according to today's law. IF I can provide just ONE instance in which abortion should be legal, then I win this debate. My opponent has failed to respond to my arguments about when abortion needs to be legal and failed to respond to my questions.Bibliography[1] "Person." Law Dictionary. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Web. 14 Sept. 2011. <http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com...;[2] Tooley, Michael. "Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics: Abortion - Lecture 4." http://spot.colorado.edu......