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

Thank you, Con. First, Con argues that original intent isn't the best way to interpret the Constitution. Con believes in nonoriginalism, where the focus is placed on the principles, rather than the specific intent, of the framers. I would argue that originalism is in fact the only "fair" way to interpret the constitution under the American system of government. Suppose that a judge has no consistent method of interpretation. He or she just gets some emotional feeling about who should win or lose and then interprets the Constitution to guide the decision toward that outcome. This (lack of) method would be obviously unjust. Keeping that in mind, let's consider how a "living constitution," "progressive justice," or other nonoriginal method of interpretation would work. What is meant is not that we should amend the Constitution; obviously Article V, as my opponent pointed out, allows for that. Neither does nonoriginalism mean that we should apply the original words to new fact patterns. Instead, what is usually meant is that we should apply the original words to create entirely new principles of constitutional law. Under the American system of government, democracy is held in high esteem. Some argue that originalism places too much emphasis on the past and too little emphasis on progress and the present. But, although it would truly be undemocratic to have a law that could never be changed, that is obviously not the case with our Constitution. The 14th Amendment was put in place to do just that: override portions of the constitution that were now deemed intolerable. The true conflict is not between past and present. The real issue is: Should today's judges be allowed to change the law written by yesterday's legislators? After all, judges are not allowed, under the Constitution, to change it or to make laws. Their sole duty, as regards judicial review, is that of interpretation. If they use nonoriginalism, deciding not based upon original intent but upon what they think should and should not be the law, then they are usurping their position. Concerning Brown v. Board of Education, this is from the decision: "[D]oes segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. ... "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." ... We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." The judges did not make up their own meaning. The framers of the 14th Amendment intended blacks and whites to have equal protection, and the judges realized allowing segregation was affecting "colored" children negatively, leading to a system that was far from "equal." This case is miles away from Roe. Anyway, if Brown has no Constitutional basis (which is not the case) then that is another issue for another debate. Con says: "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." So instead our judges should make up a new meaning that does "speak to them"? They should ignore the original meaning and fabricate one more relevant? Such a system would clearly be unjust, placing a vast amount of power in the hands of nine appointed -not elected- judges who will occupy their positions until death. The framers of the Constitution would be most indignant to realize that such an unjust position was given so much backing, that so many educated Americans would advocate allowing judges to decide their own meanings. EVEN WITH ORIGINAL INTENT: Con argues that implied rights can be included in the Constitution. I would agree that that is possible. Now, to Con's reasons why the right to abortion might be an implied right: Common law made abortion a crime after quickening but not before. What does common law have to do with anything? The only relevant period is that surrounding the drafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment. Common law had many far weirder and unjust practices harkening back to medieval traditions. For example, all men 14 and over had to be trained in using the longbow, under common law. https://www.rocketlawyer.com... The idea of "quickening" being the time when the baby's soul comes into existence was the cause of that particular weird law, and I am sure there were plenty of sexist common laws. Plainly put, common law is to the Constitution as a flashlight is to a lighthouse. Besides, arguing that the 14th Amendment makes abortion a liberty after quickening but not before is a dramatic case of nonoriginalist interpretation, as I can hardly think the composers put that much thought into it without making their intentions clearer. The main focus at the time was on segregation, not abortion. Pro didn't provide proof the actual adopters did not intend a right to abortion. The legislatures that passed the 14th Amendment, as I pointed out earlier, in most cases had already or would pass anti-abortion laws. As a result, I hardly think abortion even entered their minds. The AMA's testimony is good evidence that the scientific world regarded the fetus to be a person who should be protected. Abortion laws were to protect women from botched abortions. A little thought debunks this one. Self-abortion is much more dangerous than abortion done by a doctor. As botched abortions are even more common when done by the woman herself than when done by an untrained doctor, it seems improbable this was the case, given the AMA's lobbying and the medical push for protection of the fetus. More likely, perhaps, is the theory that the legislators' main goal was to combat doctors specializing and charging for abortions. This is not indicative of a carelessness about self-abortion but rather of a tight focus upon the illegality of the commercialization of abortion. I have seen no sources backing up Con's claim, so I cannot be sure about the exact reasoning. Original intent is the only just, democratic, and constitutional means to interpret the constitution. Under original intent, there is no constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade's preclusion of state prohibition of even 1st-trimester abortions, and absolutely no basis for the "right to abortion."