Resolved: The Supreme Court case "Roe v. Wade" should be overturned.

I would like to begin by challenging the proposed definition of "life." Life may be defined in numerous ways. As the challenger has presented the definition in context of a time period, "the period between conception of an entity and its expiration," I would note that Webster's characterizes this time period as "the period between birth and death." In fact, I cannot find a single dictionary definition that classifies conception as a starting point for this time period. I believe that in the absence of a defensible definition of life beginning at conception, this debate is moot, but I will proceed to the contentions. Contention 1: Children are routinely denied choices, decisions, and transactions without due process under the Constitution. This is called "parenting." A child, in other words a minor who has not achieved the age of majority, does not enjoy the same rights and privileges of an adult in our society. The logical reason for this is that children do not have the capacity to make adult decisions and are reliant upon guardians to guide, teach, and protect them. As such, parents have always held the right to make such decisions on behalf of the child. It is inarguable that children do not enjoy the full rights and privileges of an adult under the Constitution. Therefore, abortion does not deny due process to another person. I would also point out that the "due process" clause refers to the actions of the state against an individual. To apply this clause to the actions of one individual against another is not in accord with the intentions or wording of our laws. Contention 2: You argue that women should be held accountable for their actions, and I presume you mean "getting pregnant." You then liken this act to "theft, murder, rape or other high crimes." I contend that the act of engaging in sexual relations does not constitute a high crime punishable under the Constitution. Therefore, there is nothing to be "held accountable" for via the United States criminal justice system. Also, your contention that a woman having an abortion is equivalent to putting to death an innocent person without due process would be attendant upon a child having rights to due process. I believe I put this issue to rest in Contention #1. What's more, it would also require the unborn being legally defined as a live person, which I disputed in the definitions. I further contend that even if you should alter the definitions to support the premise that a woman undergoing an abortion is removing a child's life without due process, your contention with regards to accountability remains flawed and would deny a woman equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Conception is not an act undertaken by a woman alone. It requires the participation of a male of the species, and yet the male is not required to suffer any of the physical burdens imposed by a resultant pregnancy. Should two persons conceive a child, and only one be required, under force of law, to endure the negative consequences and risk to life imposed by that act, this itself is discriminatory. Should this become a case where regularly and with state sanctioned approval, this be always applied to the woman, while the male suffers no ill consequences, this is the very definition of gender discrimination and thus would run afoul of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Contention #3: First of all, I would like to draw attention to my restraint in not taking the bait you dangle by quoting John Boehner as any sort of expert in a scientific/legal debate, though I admit that it pains me to do so. I would note that the Constitution offers freedom of religion, meaning that no person, whatever their religion, should be forced to commit an act that is morally abhorrent to them. Should your religion, whatever it may be, ban abortion, then I do not believe the state has any right to force that person to have an abortion. However, religious pretexts do not have any place in determining the law of the land, and 47.7% of the people have no right to enforce their particular religious views upon the remaining 52.3% of the population. Doing so would infringe upon the religious freedom of that 52.3%, which is in direct violation of the Constitution. Therefore, what one religious group feels to be abhorrent should not dictate whether that is an attendant right of other citizens. As a case in point, many religions believe that eating pork is morally abhorrent. If the state should ban the eating of pork for all citizens based upon this religious precept, they would be infringing upon the religious rights of Christians to serve ham for Easter dinner, among other things. As for your proposal that women be allowed two abortions, this is simply ridiculous. First, you state that abortion falls under the legal definition of murder, i.e. denying right to life of an innocent. If it is murder, then no exceptions should be allowed. If it is allowable, then it must not be murder. You give qualifying conditions under which the two exceptions would be acceptable, but you characterize those only as "very serious cases." I contend that every pregnancy is a very serious case. Pregnancy itself and childbirth specifically present a risk to the life of the mother, even under the most ideal circumstances, and the negative consequences of bearing a child can last a lifetime. Thus, I deny your affirmation and contend that you have failed to meet your burden of proof and contradicted your own argumen