The Constitutional Basis of Roe v. Wade

Let me start by saying this was a fun and fast debate. I enjoyed my time, C-Mach. ::Con's Arguments:: • "How do the anti-abortion laws deprive each woman of their potential day in court and restrict the opportunity for individuals to present their cases?" With anti-abortion laws in place, a woman's inability to receive an abortion is not the result of her own trial. Instead of having her rights stripped due to the ruling of her own trial, her rights have been denied without affording her the opportunity to present her case. While one can legally challenge the law itself, one cannot request a trial on the legality of their individual abortion. By denying women the opportunity to do this, anti-abortion laws circumvent the due process of law. • "How were [anti-abortion laws] not based on established legal policy? Also, where does it exactly say, in federal law, that a fetus is indeed not legally considered living? Both the lack of legal foundation for anti-abortion laws and the status of fetuses as either living or non-living were addressed within Roe v. Wade itself [1]. Anti-abortion laws of the time were founded on the state's interest in preserving life. However, as no legal standard existed declaring fetuses as living beings, preserving life could not stand as the legal basis for the law. As the Supreme Court was unable to uncover a specific constitutional basis for protecting the unborn over the rights of the mother, abortions were granted until the fetus could be considered viable. This ruling was possible precisely because the anti-abortion laws lacked established legal foundation. • "I have asked you again and again: How did anti-abortion laws violate due process? You have failed to explain to me." Ah, but I have. This is the second time I have shown how anti-abortion laws violate due process by denying women the opportunity for a fair trial and by lacking a legal foundation. ::Summary of Pro's Arguments:: 1. Anti-abortion Laws Restrict Individual Liberties Con has conceded the point that anti-abortion laws restrict individual liberties, specifically the right to privacy. This restriction violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and was the constitutional basis of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. 2. Anti-abortion Laws Violate Due Process of Law Con has mistakenly claimed that anti-abortion laws were allowed to restrict individual liberties because they provided due process of law. However, as the Supreme Court understood, due process of law was completely violated by these anti-abortion laws. They allowed for no fair trials for the women they affected and were based on no established laws. ::Closing:: I have demonstrated a constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade in three ways. First, anti-abortion laws violated the 14th Amendment by denying women the right to privacy. Second, anti-abortion laws ignored due process of law by lacking legal basis and removing the rights of women without the opportunity for a trial. Lastly, I have shown that Roe v. Wade's ruling finds basis elsewhere in the constitution as well, a point that Con has conceded. Sadly, Con has offered zero proof for his claim and has devoted all of his arguments to simply asking for the same information in slightly different ways. In light of the evidence I have presented and the complete lack of evidence supplied by my opponent, I strongly urge a Pro vote! Thanks for voting! ::References:: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...