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

Pro posted: "I am very sorry for the long wait and will try to be quicker in the next round."No worries. You indicated that you are busy with other things and we all have other things going on in our lives as well.Pro continued: "Firstly, as far as the definitional arguments, my opponent argues that it only needs to meet one of the definitions. I say that this is not true. In order to be qualified as a human that is protected under the law, that person should meet ALL of the definitions. Based upon my opponent's logic, a duck-billed platypus should be qualified as a duck because it has a bill and lays eggs (like a duck). Obviously that is not true."Ok PRO. Let's examine the legal definitions again.http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com... person 1:"natural person"2:the body of a human beingalso : the body and clothing of a human being Example: had drugs on his person3: one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties natural person : a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law (compare juridical person legal person) legal person : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued Pro, I was almost as surprised in your earlier post when you said; "It is important to note that according to definition 2, a fetus does qualify as a human being." as I am now when you say a Human Being... A "HUMAN BEING" is not a "person" nor worthy of THEIR rights and the life THEY are already living,.... unless they can IN YOUR WORDS "meet ALL of the definitions."One of the definitions is about how Corporations can be (and presently ARE) recognized as "persons."My opponent (PRO) should note that Corporations are legally "persons" too. Not only are the people working for corporation legally (and Constitutionally) seen as 'persons', but so too is the business itself.I ask my opponent and our voters how a non human entity such as a business/ corporation be legally defined and recognized as a "person" under our laws and our Constitution. But a HUMAN BEING who is in the fetal stage of their LIFE, can not? I disagree with my opponent and his conclusion that a human being must meet 'ALL of the definitions' for the various kinds of 'legal persons' in order to be legally recognized them self.If the legal definitions of person is "a human being" that means that ANY "human being" should automatically be qualified. They don't have to also meet the definitions for any of the other variations (for corporations and such).I'll not respond to my opponents; "a duck-billed platypus should be qualified as a duck because it has a bill and lays eggs (like a duck)" comment, other than to say that I am disappointed that he would resort to an appeal to ridicule in this debate. http://www.nizkor.org...Things (including persons) are defined by the attributes that they have. We are not defined by the attributes we lack. As to my opponents citing of the actual text of the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" to support his claim that a prenatal child should not be legally recognized in all cases outside of the 60 or more listed,... because the act itself provides for an exception (allows) for abortions? My opponent is once again "begging the question." http://nizkor.org... I ask my opponent, what proof he requires that a prenatal child is a person? When I submit to him that a pre-natal child meets at least one (I saw more than one) LEGAL definition for 'person' he says "it meets one of them but that is not enough." When I submit to my opponent that some of our laws (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) already does recognize prebirth children in more than 60 Cases,... he claims that the ACT supports HIS claims that they are NOT 'persons' because the ACT allows for abortions to continue. My opponent is tantamount to someone using the Bible to defend the Bible. How can I better make the point that the Unborn Victims of Violence act is rightfully protecting the rights of SOME prebirth children (by making their killings punishable) but that the children NOT covered by the act are 'persons' as well.... to an opponent who uses the act as justifications for itself?Apparently to my opponent, the laws regarding personhood can never be challenged,... because a person is only what the law says. That, if the laws say abortion is legal or that a child in the womb is not a "person" then that is proof in and of itself that they are not persons.It "begs the question" of how the laws can ever be changed if the current laws are the final word on themselves?