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

Thank you, chuz-life, for your incredible conduct. I hope to debate with you soon. For a quick summary, this is what I am arguing: 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)These are the definitions both you and have agreed to: 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."I have never said that it meets all of the definitions. You are taking my words out of context. I stated that for something or someone to qualify as a legal human, that person needs t o meet all of the definitions. Clearly, a fetus does NOT meet all of the requirements to be a legal human protected by rights of the constitution. Remember the sylllogism that I have provided in the first round (and summarized in this round). It "begs the question" of how the laws can ever be changed if the current laws are the final word on themselves?This is a straw man argument. It use to be the case that slavery was legal and it was the current law. It is obvious that laws can (and, in some cases, should) be changed. This is not a debate to argue that. 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 am unsure what my opponent is arguing. I never agreed to the fact taht a corporation should be legally recognized as a "person." (In fact, I am against a corporation being legally defined as a person). 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. I am deeply sorry if you were offended by this. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that X does not have to meet the requirements of Y in order to be Y. Thank you.