Pro-Choice

In the second round, there are to be further arguments and rebuttals. As there is nothing for me to rebut, I incorporate my arguments of the opening round into this round. I will also give some further arguments. The Viability Standard Used By the Supreme Court in both Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is Intrinsically Unjust and Flawed In "Roe" as well as in " Planned Parenthood v. Casey", 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the "viability" of the unborn plays a distinctly important role in abortion jurisprudence. If the unborn is "viable", i. e. able to live outside the mother, then the state has a legitimate interest in protecting that life. Presumably, Fourteenth Amendment "person status" is acquired by a "viable fetus. " In "Casey," the Court held, "Viability, as we noted in Roe, is time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. " This measure is intrinsically unjust and flawed for at least two (2) reasons: 1. Undergoing change from dependent to independent is "accidental" change (i. e. not substantially altering the type or kind of being in question). For example, the famous actor Christopher Reeve did not become less of a human being, or cease to be Christopher Reeve, merely because a tragic accident left him dependent on others for his very survival. The "he" that underwent change remained the same "he. " Consequently, changing from nonviable to viable (or vice-versa) does not remove from, or add to, a being any property or properties that would change its identity. The Supreme Court thereby implies that the unborn is a distinct human life apart from the mother, only changing it's dependence in relation to her. If it is a biologically distinct human life, then it should be accorded Fourteenth Amendment person status, and cannot be deprived of life due to condition of dependency, anymore than Mr. Reeve could be executed simply because he needed others to help him live after the accident. 2. Viability is the measure of the sophistication and/or accessibility of our neonatal support systems while the fetus remains the same. Viability cannot, therefore, be a measure of obtaining personhood. The viability standard becomes arbitrary and not applicable to the philosophical question as to whether or not the unborn is a full-fledged member of the human community protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, under the Supreme Court's strained logic, a 22 week fetus in 2014 is a fully human person, while a 30 week fetus in 1914 is not fully human. This is an absurdity, for our technological advances do not change the nature of the dependent being. The Court confuses PHYSICAL independence with ONTOLOGICAL independence; mistakenly arguing from the fact of the pre-viable unborn's lack of independence from its mother that it is not an independent being or a "meaningful life" worthy of Constitutional protection. Since the viability standard is intrinsically unjust and flawed, the unborn must be accorded status as Fourteenth Amendment persons and abortion should not be legal in the United States.