Abortion is murder in the US

I can tell right away, the rest of this debate is going to be pointlessR1) What is legal is lawfulThis is the entire failure in my adversaries argument, and where he conceded the debate. He said he did not concede but by saying abortion is legal by extension he is admitting it is lawful. His entire premise is that something can be legal, and not lawful which is false. Let me lay this out in a syllogism. (P1) Everything that is legal is lawful(P2) Abortion is legal(C) Therefore abortion is lawfulMy adversary is asserting that things can be unlawful if they are legal, which is directly changing the definition of what lawful and legal mean. The entire crux of his argument hinges on morality, and not what is lawful. Just to be clear what is lawful =/= always moral. He is literally changing the terms and trying to argue that something is lawful necessitates that it is moral or ethical. This is false in every way imaginable by the very definitions of law and lawful. Abortion is passed and allowed under federal lawSince it is allowed under federal law, the act of abortion a fetus is permitted under lawSince the act of abortion is allowed under federal law, it is a lawful act. My adversary has to respond to the very definition of what lawful entails, which is as I cited in my previous round is as followsLawful - conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.Abortion is recognized by federal law and is permitted, therefor it is in fact lawful. Since my adversary agrees that it is legal, it logically follows that it is lawful to abide by what is legal. As what is legal does in fact necessitate what is lawful. He can't just ignore the definition and pretend that is not what it means. He can apply any definition to anything with that logic. R2) Abortion is a constitutional and federal lawLet's review what my adversary is saying. He is *assuming*, that a child is a person and under a law that is established by the constitution they have the right to life. Then sites fetal laws in his previous round to show that this is the case. Fetal laws, as I cited vary state to state. Meaning what defines a person as a person, under my adversary's own citations vary depending on throw the state labels a fetus. Now let's review what the constitution saws about a fetus14th amendment " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " [1]Right off the start, I want to show that the attempt to justify life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness points to all person that are born. A fetus is not born, but has the capability of being born. The other law my adversary likes to cite and is referring to is Us code 1841 in regards to unborn children. [2]He likes to start off by citing this" Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. "[2]The applies this law to the mothers. Where he fails to misunderstand how the law is written is the part that says that violates any provision of the laws listed in subsection b. Sub section b specifically accounts for abortion and the mothers right to abort a fetus. Sub section a is directly applied if someone where to say kill the mother, and the fetus died with it when it was considered viable. That would account as man slaughter, under fetal state homicide laws. He is misrepresenting that entire subsection to the point it hurts. Then we have Roe vs Wade" Roe vs Wade which occurred January 22,1973 is where the supreme court struck down an 1857 Texas statute that made abortion illegal except where the life of the mother was in danger. The Court's opinion, as written by Justice harry a. blackmun, set forth guidelines for the drafting of future state legislation on the issue. In a long and detailed opinion, the Court specified the points during a woman's pregnancy when the interests of the state in the health of the mother and of the fetus emerge. Roe established the parameters of the abortion debate for decades to come." [4]This case the primary reason abortion was legalized in the United States. So we can see under federal law, constitutional laws, and even state laws abortion is considered legal and therefore lawful. He then asks this" I ask my opponent and our voters how the Constitutionality of any law can ever be challenged "The entire preface under the constitution is vague, which is what led to Roe vs Wade to begin with, as the 14th amendment was vague enough to leave the supreme court in agreement that not letting a woman have an abortion violated her right to privacy and her body. How are laws challenged, because they are based on interpretation if they are not written in specific details. Laws as everything else evolve to fit the time and period in which they are needed. The part about the right to life which as I cited above was specifically referring to persons that were born, was vague enough to grant a woman the right to have an abortion because the supreme court decided it violated her ninth amendment rights. Laws without specifics can be routed in subjectivity and interpretation, this is a common concept with the legal system. Its why there are lawyers and people who study law, to find interpretations that benefit whomever they are defending. The case of Roe vs Wade not only established that a fetus could be aborted up until the first tri mester, it promised that woman the right to so under federal law. So yes a fetus is not protected by the constitution, and whatever is legal is lawful. Laws do change, and are re written, so they are precise and applicable depending on when they are needed. Look at the Enron scandal where accounting was a primary reason to the deceit behind it. Because of that situation laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are passed in order to make sure it does not happen again. The same is true with slavery. In any given time where something is legal, it is a truism and a fact that it is lawful to abide by what is legal. Abortion in every sense of the matter is legal, and a law therefore it is lawful and not murder. R3 ) Self Defense My adversary cites this to start his rebuttal " This includes the right to defend the rights and lives of 'children in the womb. "Saying he is an advocate to defend the life of a child in the womb, but misses the point that fatal pregnancies result int he mothers right to defend her own body because of the child that is in the womb. If someone is inflicting harm upon your body to the point of death, it is our right to self defense to defend our body. My adversary keeps asserting that a fetus or baby is promised certain laws under the constitution but has failed to properly show it. Even if we consider the baby as a person and one that is about to be born, the fact would remain that baby is damaging a mothers body to the point of death. That baby is the aggressor upon the mother, and at that stage she is promised the right to defend her body from the aggressor. What is the baby not promised rights at that point? Because the baby is the same as a murder, he is about to kill someone and due to our right to self defense the mother at that point can abort the fetus to save her own life. He then states this" It may surprise my opponent to learn that I do not hold the view that ALL abortions are unlawful / murders"This is the second concession of the debate. I would refer my adversary to the resolution that he wanted to debate. Abortion, or the act of abortion is murder. Since my adversary has just conceded that not all abortions are not murders, then his entire BOP is shattered. That is like saying sex is morally wrong, but it is okay to have sex with hot girls. Abortion is an objective term which is the termination of a pregnancy, and per the debate resolution is murder. If committing an abortion is not murder in a certain scenario, then it abridges the resolution. This is the second concession by my adversaryR4) Slavery Con asserts that slavery was not lawful prior to the time it was abolished. This as I have cited in my prior round is false. Something cannot be unlawful if there is no law that is stopping it from occurring. The very definition of lawful, entails there must be a law. The perception of the laws at the time, did not define certain people as persons. That was the consensus among the majority. In a legal and lawful sense, an appeal to majority is often how laws are decided and interpreted. That does not mean they are correct, but it does mean that is how the law was perceived. Thus until the slavery was abolished it was considered legal by the majority based on the interpretation they had of the Constitution. So yes slavery was lawful at a certain point in time. the other points are irrelevant at this point because they stray from the resolution and i'm out of roomConclusionMy main points remain uncontested, as my adversary is trying to later what the definition of lawful means. He has admitted that abortion is legal but fails to understand what is legal is lawful by definition. He is trying to argue for ethics and not what is lawful. Abiding by the law is lawful. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3] http://www.ushistory.org...[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...