This House Concludes that Abortion is Murder

Round 5 - Final Comments and rebuttals My thanks to Con for a very spirited and (I hope) informative debate. From the beginning of this debate, I have tried to make it clear that it is understood that Abortions are Legal in the sense that our laws allow for them. I have not questioned our Supreme Court's role or authority - as my opponent has claimed. The Supreme Court's DECISIONS to maintain the legality of voluntary (elective) abortions is what is being challenged. The Supreme Court's ruling on slavery in the Dred Scott's Case was submitted as evidence that our Supreme Court is NOT infallible and to show that their own rulings can in fact be Un-Constitutional. Our Supreme Court's Justices are not above the Laws or the Constitution and they can be impeached. My opponent's appeal to authority was not found in his regard for the judicial review powers or the overall authority of the Supreme Court itself. The appeal to authority was in my opponents use of the language of the rulings being contested (Casey, Roe and others) as an authority unto themselves. In simple terms, the timeline was this. 1. Abortion Laws were challenged 2. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of keeping abortion legal 3. The Court's decisions are being challenged 4. Con cites the language of the Court's decision as an authority unto itself. As though that language is the final word and can not be challenged. That is the appeal to authority that Con is making. It's akin to someone using the language of the King James Bible as the final word in a debate about the claims that are made within it. It is one thing to agree with or to believe what the material says. It is another thing to say that the claims made are final and can not be challenged. As I have Acknowledged the Supreme Court's authority more than once in this debate, I do not know where my opponent's claim that I have refused to acknowledge their authority is coming from. Where Con claims that "the Supreme Court cannot render an opinion that is "unconstitutional" - I have to disagree. I believe that “We the people” are the final arbiters of all things constitutional and unconstitutional and we the people are the absolute guardians of the Constitution. " This is evidenced by the people's ability - through their representatives - to impeach and remove Justices and lawmakers, their ability to make news laws, and even to amend the Constitution itself. I find it interesting that (according to his past debates) my opponent probably doesn't agree that our Government and Courts have the right to define 'marriage' as being only between one man and one woman. .. but it does have the right to define what human beings are and which human beings are not 'persons'- as to deny them their rights under our Constitution. It's unfortunate that my opponent mis-understands my use of the reference to the Marbury v Madison case. That case supports my claim that an Un-Constitutional law (or ruling) is an Un-Lawful law and or ruling. I suspect that my opponent understands the point but is not willing to acknowledge it. Likewise, it's unfortunate that my opponent does not seem to appreciate the distinctions that I tried to make between that witch is 'legal' and that which is 'lawful. ' I remind my opponent of the fact that Slavery was once 'legal' and even upheld by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. But was it 'LAWFUL' for the Supreme Court to deny Constitutional Rights to those human beings enslaved when that ruling was made? When my opponent cites the language of 18 U. S. Code 1841 that says that law can not be used to permit the prosecution of abortions, he is again making an appeal to authority. Con does not seem to understand that - THAT is the language that is being challenged. So, the use of it as the final word unto itself is fallacious. Furthermore, I am not using the language of 18 U. S. Code " 1841 to 'prosecute' anyone. The legal definitions that define a 'child in the womb' as 'a human being' and the language that make it a crime of 'murder' to criminally kill one is only being used in this debate to make the case that we have a serious inconsistency in our laws. Especially when those laws say a woman can kill her 'unborn child' herself for any reason she wants to. .. but if a criminal kills that same child (even accidentally) in a criminal act? It's a MURDER. There is something wrong about that. My opponent lamented; "18 U. S. Code " 1111 defines "Murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. " Abortion is not unlawful, therefore it cannot be murder. "I ask our voters to weigh in on that. Do our laws define children in the womb as 'children? ' They do. Does the law already make it a crime of murder to kill a 'child in the womb in any stage of their development' in a criminal act? They do. By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act. .. are our laws establishing the personhood status of the victim killed? They are - because as Con himself posted; "Murder is one PERSON killing another in an unlawful act. " Are aborted children INTENTIONALLY killed by the doctors and nurses who are paid to kill and remove them? They are! Need I attach images to support this fact? Under 18 U. S. Code 1814 - the only difference between an unborn child killed in a criminal act that is deemed to be a MURDER and an unborn child killed in a so called 'Legal Abortion' (sic) is the portion of the law that is being challenged and debated here. I ask our voters to consider the Constitutional rights of the child that is being. Is it lawful to say that the child has the right to not be killed in a criminal act. .. but the mother can kill it for any reasons she wants to herself? How can the child's Constitutional right to not be killed unjustly be so easily dismissed? As cited earlier, the 14th Amendment says we all have the right to the EQUAL protections of our laws. Where is the equal protections for a child in the womb who can be murdered by a stranger in a criminal act. .. but can't be murdered by the mother - who simply pays someone to kill it - 'legally? 'I have shown that "abortion is murder" in cases such as when someone tricks a woman into taking abortion pills and the child (in any stage of development) is killed. I have shown that the statement "abortion is murder" is especially true in the many other countries where abortions are already banned. I have shown how the allegation "abortion is murder" is not simply an argument for rights that the child killed 'ought' to have. If that child can be recognized as a MURDER victim when a stranger (even unintentionally) kills them in a criminal act. .. it is also a child/ person when targeted for a killing in an abortion or any other act. Furthermore, I have shown that the laws which (for now) keep abortions legal are violating the 5th and 14th Amendment rights of the children being targeted for abortions. To that end, the laws which (for now) keep those abortions 'legal' are not 'lawful'We have people in prison right now - for the murders of children in the womb by illegal abortions. I submit that the saying "Abortion is Murder" is a true and legal fact in at least those cases. I have tried to expand on that fact in this debate - to make the case that other abortions are murders too.