Embryonic stem cell research and the Constitution are in conflict with Roe versus Wade

== Intro == Quark challenged me directly and out of the blue on this topic. Normally, I decline all such challenges, but this one sparked my interest since it dealt with constitutional law. Quark has restricted the voting to 4500 Elo minimum (I say this mostly to remind myself what the restriction is, since DDO doesn't provide a way to check once you accept a challenge). As the one who is making an affirmative statement, Pro has the BoP. Pro also has the BoP because he is challenging the status quo. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court has ruled three separate times that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Gonzalez v. Carhart). Conclusion: Pro has the BoP. == My case == (C1) What the Supreme Court says that the Constitution says *is* what the Constitution says Pro loses by default because he does not have the right to interpret the Constitution for himself. What the Supreme Court says *is* what the Constitution says. Justice Jackson, when he sat on the Supreme Court, once said, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible . . . because we are final." Justice Jackson was acknowledging that sometimes the Constitution has multiple possible meanings, but *some body* must be charged with making a final, binding determination of how to interpret the Constitution. Otherwise, the stability and "rule of law" would be undermined because every country-bumpkin could claim to be a constitutional scholar. Unless we have an *official* interpreter of the Constitution, it would be permissible for someone to not pay taxes and claim the Constitution permits them to refuse to pay. It is therefore incoherent to claim that the Constitution is in conflict with Roe v. Wade. By definition in our political system, Roe v. Wade was a declaration of *what the Constitution* says about abortion. As the Supreme Court stated in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gets to say "what the law is." Roe v. Wade was a statement that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. If the Constitution permits abortion, then abortion cannot be "in conflict" with the Constitution, as the resolution asserts. (R1) Rebuttal: Roe v. Wade never claimed that life does not start at conception Pro's main problem in Round 1 with Roe v. Wade is that abortion doctors should not get to define when life starts. However, the Supreme Court has acknowledge that "life" (whatever that means) does start at conception, but the Constitution *still* protects the right to an abortion. As the Supreme Court stated in Gonzalez v. Carhart, the Court's holding in Roe had three main components: "First, a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second, the State has the power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering the woman"s life or health. And third, the State has legitimate interests from the pregnancy"s outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child." The third component is the most relevant here. The Supreme Court has held that states may enact laws that force woman to undergo rudimentary counseling before deciding to have an abortion because the state has an interest in protecting fetal life. Pro quotes Texas as saying that states should have a right to protect fetal life. This position is *consistent* with Roe v. Wade because the state is allowed to pass laws to ensure that women are making a fully informed decision when deciding to get an abortion. The state can try to dissuade them (using non-coercive means) from having an abortion in order to protect the life of the fetus. If you read the Supreme Court's Gonzalez v. Carhart decision, in essence, it acknowledges that the rights of two beings are in conflict: the woman's right to bodily autonomy and the fetus's right to life. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life prior to the fetus being viable to live outside the womb. A woman is a fully formed rational entity that can feel pain. A fetus is neither fully rational nor can it feel pain prior to viability. So the woman's rights trump. However, that doesn't mean that the state cannot impose some restrictions to protect fetal life and ensure that woman are making a fully informed decision. Conclusion: Pro is wrong to assert that Roe v. Wade dealt with when life begins. It's possible to acknowledge that life begins at conception and still permit abortion. The right to life is not absolute, and when there are countervailing concerns, the right to life can be restricted. For example, the state can conscript you into the army and make you die for it. That's constitutional (and does not violate your right to life). The conflicting concern in wartime in survival of the nation. In the abortion context, the conflicting concern is the woman's right to bodily autonomy and the woman and her doctor's right to privacy. When rights are in conflict, there's no clear answer about whose rights should trump. Some body (like the Supreme Court) must weigh the competing interests and decide whose rights win out. And the Supreme Court has done so. And their interpretation of the Constitution is final. (C2) The Supreme Court as employed utilitarian calculations in the past and util favors abortion In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court employed a utilitarian calculation to decide what procedural due process is afforded by the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so because it makes little sense to afford additional protections that are meaningless in practice. Banning abortion would be meaningless in practice. Elizabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times explains, "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women"s deaths during pregnancy." [1] In essence, this study proves that outlawing abortion does not save fetal life. Women simply seek back-alley abortions, which are extremely dangerous. There is thus no utilitarian benefit to banning abortion, but there are harms. Constitutional due process would not permit government action that is wholly irrational because it fails to achieve its purpose and does more harm than good. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this approach for substantive due process in Lawrence v. Texas, holding that morality alone cannot be a basis for making certain conduct illegal (in that case, outlawing same-sex sodomy). The state must show that the law will have some sort of benefit. It cannot merely assert moral outrage at the practice it seeks to ban. Unless a state can prove that an abortion ban would be effective, it would be unconstitutional even under the "rational basis" approach taken in Lawrence. (C3) There is no rational basis for banning embryonic stem cell research and treatments The same utilitarian concerns apply here. Embryonic stem cells (for research) are created by fertilizing eggs in the laboratory. [2] This means that the embryo that is formed is never viable because it never has a mother who can carry it to term. [2] The embryo never becomes cognizant, so it never knows anything of the "life" that it is supposedly missing out on. The cruelty from ending a life comes from killing a cognizant being that can feel pain. If a consciousness is still in the same black nothingness that existed for you and me prior to our births, ending that life pre-consciousness is not cruel because it never attains consciousness to even realize that it has a "life" to miss out on. From the perspective of the pre-conscious fetus, it simply never existed. If my life had been ended pre-consciousness, that would be no worse from my perspective than if my parents had chosen not to fertilize my mother's egg at the exact moment required for my conception. If you tell scientists not to create embryos in a lab, those lives will *still* not come into existence. These are embryos that were donated for research. Whether stem cell research is permitted or banned, those eggs are not going to become people. So there's really no difference in outcome. In addition, there are utilitarian harms from banning stem cell research. Human stem cells have the ability to become any type of body tissue, so "research involving human . . . stem cells . . . promises new treatments and possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries." [3] Stem cells could be used to replace myelin in neurons for demyelinating diseases (like Parkinson's) and can be used to regrow spinal tissue for people who have spinal cord injuries. Banning stem cell research means unnecessary suffering for real, cognizant people who have these serious issues. The Constitution would not require banning such an important field of research with little to no expected benefit (see Mathews v. Eldridge). For all these reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://stemcells.nih.gov... [3] U.S. National Institute of Health