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

I too look forward to having more debates with my opponent in the future. By accepting my debate challenge, my opponent automatically put himself into a virtual 'no win' situation. It has been a long standing belief that (when it comes to debating an issue) "it is not possible to prove a negative. " Fortunately for my opponent, many of our laws support his denials and conclusions. The onus is on myself to show that a human being in the womb is a "person" and the burden to my opponent was to "rebut my Constitutional arguments and to DEFEND the Constitutionality of elective induced abortions remaining legal. "I hold that a human individuals life begins at conception, that their aging begins at conception and that (since they are human beings) their "personhood" also begins at conception; when their life does. And I contend that since prenatal children meet the most basic criteria for "personhood" they are being denied their rights by the legality of elective abortion on demand. To support my claims, I provided links to legal definitions, a study on aging and to the wording of the Constitution itself. My opponent summarized his argument as follows: "P1: Only a person has a right to life. P2: An entity is a person if it has (1) consciousness, (2) the capacity to reason, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate messages, and (5) the presence of self-concepts. P3: A human fetus does not have properties (1-5). P4: Therefore, a human fetus is not a person. (from 2 and 3)C: Therefore, a human fetus does not have a right to life. (from 1 and 4)"While I am inclined to agree with my opponent on P1, I can't say that I do agree. Even animals (IMHO) have a right to their lives and to be treated humanely. Objectively speaking, I wonder how "humane" an elective abortion can intellectually and honestly be said to be? With regards to P2? My opponent again asserts that a "person" is not a person unless they are; "(1) conscious, (2) have the capacity to reason, (3) exhibit self-motivated activity, (4) have the capacity to communicate messages, and (5) to exhibit the presence of self-concepts. "Not only are all of those traits extra-Constitutional when held to the legal definitions that I provided ( . http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com... ) but my opponents requirements would have completely stripped my wife of HER rights, Her personhood and HER right to the protection of our laws,. .. during the three weeks that she was in a coma and had no favorable prognosis for a full recovery. The Constitution (5th and 14th amendments) states that ALL persons have a right to their lives and to the protection of our laws. It does not place the conditions (1-5) that my opponent claims that it does. Likewise, the most basic LEGAL definition for a "person" is broad and inclusive as well. As my opponent agreed to earlier, a human being in the fetal stage of their life (human fetus) IS a "human being" and does meet at least THAT one legal requirement for "personhood. "Pro (of course) disagrees that is enough. Essentially holding to the view that a child is not a child nor a "person" worthy of rights and the protections of our laws,. .. . until they can overcome his ability to deny they are persons anymore. How else are we to interpret the view that "a person is not a person until they are (1) Conscious, (2) have the capacity to reason, (3) exhibit self motivated activity, (4) can communicate, (5) show they have a sense of 'self? 'AS the voters for this debate read my opponents remaining remarks (P3, P4 & C) I hope you will also Consider this exchange form the Oral Arguments of the Roe v Wade ruling: . http://youtu.be... "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? Ms Weddington: 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. Ms Weddington: That’s right. " The back and forth continues for quite a while in the oral arguments of Roe v Wade without the question of when life begins or the personhood of prenatal children ever being acknowledged or established by the Supreme Court. It is interesting to note this exchange between Roes Lawyer (Mr. Flowers) and Justice "Potter Stewart;" " Mr. Flowers: - . .. I know the Fifth Amendment, no one shall be deprived of rights to life, liberty, and property without the due process of law. Justice Potter Stewart: Yes, but then the Fourteenth Amendment defines a person as somebody who is born, doesn’t it? Mr. Flowers: I’m not sure about that, Your Honor. Justice Potter Stewart: I know it does. Any person born or naturalized in the United States doesn't’t-- oh, that’s not a definition of a person, but that’s a definition of a citizen. " The United States Supreme Court came very close to recognizing, respecting and establishing the personhood and the Constitutional rights of prebirth children when they decided Roe. The Court for whatever reason at the time decided instead to try to find a balance between the rights of a woman to her privacy and intimate decisions and the new child's rights to their life and to the protections of our laws. Instead of ruling that a life, rights and personhood all begin at the same moment when the child is first created? The court decided instead to set an arbitrarily decided standard (essentially as my opponent does) that essentially says "a child is not a child nor worthy of the protection of our laws,. .. unless and until it can live too long and somehow breech our (societies) ability to deny them" Then? Like Magic! They become persons. I thank my opponent again for accepting this challenge and I wish him only the best of luck in our future exchanges. Thanks to all who followed our debate and please vote Con if you agree with me, that elective abortions violate the rights of the children aborted! Sincerely, ~Chuz