Abortion is murder in the US

R1) Legal and LawfulAgain this is now tedious because my adversary is still trying to alter the basic concept of what legal and lawful mean. If this were allotted he could assign his own definition to any word that is general. I would ask the voters to review what the following definitions actually entail Legal - permitted by law; lawful: [1]Lawful - allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law [2]Murder - The unlawful killing of another human being [3]Abortion is legal, as I have cited in my previous rounds. This is a truism, if something is legal it is by definition lawful [1]. Since abortion is lawful because it is legal [1][2], by extension it is not murder per my adversaries definitions. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. A fetus has to be shown to be a human being, and even if it is a human being by my adversaries own choice of definitions abortion is lawful and legal so the act of killing the fetus is not unlawful. I would ask my adversary to review what a law is. Law - the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc. [4]So to answer my adversaries question, yes any rules or set of rules that is made by a consensus among a state or group of people is lawful to the people that abide and live under that specific state or group. Abiding by a law is lawful, this is just repetitive at this point so I will not expound on it. My adversary is still mistaking what he considers right and wrong, to what lawful actually means. He cannot change the definition of a word to fit what he wants it to mean. Lawful and legal necessitate each other and have an objective meaning no matter how much he doesn't want them too. My adversary has still failed to refute my syllogism or the basic premise behind this concept with an attempt to change the definition of lawful. I repeat for the 100th time, everything that is legal is lawful by definition. He claims he is not arguing from a moral standpoint but that is false, his entire argument is confusing what he thinks is right or wrong with what is legal and lawful. R2) Constitution and abortionJust to state this, by no means is a fetus guaranteed any rights by the constitution as this is referring to people that are born or naturalized into the united states. He is essentially arguing any law or act that permits or allows abortion to be legal is unconstitutional which is a flat contradiction and is just wrong. The Supreme Court has the right and the ability to determine certain laws and bring them under review and question. This is most commonly refereed to as judicial review .Judicial Review - "Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judicial branch. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution. Judicial review was established in the classic case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)." [5]They ruled and found that laws which restrict abortion before a fetus is viable is a violation of a women's constitutional rights because doing so violates women's right to medical privacy, and by that extension restriction of abortion is unconstitutional which is the primary foundation of roe vs wade. So abortion is not on legal but constitutional as well as empowered and allowed by the supreme court decision and interpretation of the constitution. Therefore it is lawful in all sense of the term, as long as it occurs before a states viability and fetal homicide laws occur. R3) Code 1841My adversary keeps siting sub section A, and misinterpreted what the law is actually meant to entail. I have stated earlier and it is a fact, that this law applies to someone to who is causing harm to the mother and therefore causing harm to the fetus. Let's review the second part to sub section A which my adversary is claiming is a federal law" Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. " [6]then sub section b (i)" the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant" [6]and sub section b (ii)" the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child. "This entire law he is citing is referring to someone that causes harm to the mother and therefore kills or injures the child (which in actually has to be past the stage of viability). The initial difference is that the fetus is inside the mothers body, which the supreme court ruled if the fetus is not considered viable via fetal homicide laws, she is allotted the right to abortion. Someone injuring the mother and the fetus is denying the fetus the potential to have life and removing the mothers constitutional right of choice. He is misrepresenting this entire law and what it actually entails. You can logically and clearly see by sub section i and ii, this entire law is in specific reference to someone that is attacking or harming a pregnant woman. R4) Self DefenseMy adversary concedes that abortion can be used in acts of self defense, and by acknowledging this he defeats his own resolution. The resolution is that abortion is murder. If he can admit that some abortions are not murder, and lawful then he contradicts his BOP. Abortion in the general sense is unlawful according to my adversary. By saying some abortions are lawful, he is defeating his own resolution. At this point the resolution has changed to abortion is murder, to unjustified abortions are murder which is an entirely different topic. By stating and agreeing to my point, he concedes that not all abortions are murder, and therefore abortion can be lawfully justified and not murder by extension. He then states that some some abortions are justified but are still murder, but by accepting that someone has the right to self defense (which he concedes is legal and lawful) then he is admitting that abortion under self defense is not murder. Let me lay it out in a syllogsim(P1) The right to self defense grants permission to kill legally in self defense(P2) Abortions that danger a mothers life cause the mother to act in self defense and kill the fetus(C) Abortion a fetus under self defense is not murder, because it is lawful and legal under the parameters of this debateReviewing the definitionsMurder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Self defense is lawful, and self defense in abortion is lawful. Therefore some abortions are lawful and not murder, and my adversary concedes this debate. R5) SlaveryI am not going back into laws but i'm going to treat this as a dropped argument as he my adversary still has no properly responded to it or even addressed the key point. The perception of what the constitution stated was an objective fact at the time slavery was imposed, and it was a fact that slavery was objectively legal and permitted under the constitution based on peoples perception of it. As the founding fathers, and the government have the right to determine laws, they determined that slavery should be legal. As it was legal it was lawful. This is a truism given the time frame of it. ConclusionWe are still doing the same song and dance and this is growing redundant. My adversary lacks a fundamental understanding of what is moral and what is lawful. He has mistaken the two the entire debate and continues to mistake them. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[6] http://www.law.cornell.edu...