Abortion is murder in the US

We have both shared a lot of material to support our views and we have drifted a bit off topic more than once. (I blame sleep deprivation for some of that. ) So, I will use this round to repeat and to clarify some of my arguments already made. In round one, my opponent said; "Pro claims abortion is murder in the US and defines murder by the unlawful act of killing someone else. I challenge him to this stance. [R1]" The question becomes; "How are abortions murder in the United States? "To answer that question, we have to first establish the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is 'a human being. ' A 'person. ' To establish that fact, I cited the text of the FEDERAL law "18 U. S. Code § 1841" [2] section (d). Section (d) defines an unborn child as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb. " I also quoted the text from that same FEDERAL law (section a-2-c) which says "If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall be punished as provided under sections 1111,1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. "I then shared the link to FEDERAL Law - U. S. Code 1111 [3] as it pertains to the crime of MURDER. In short, 18 U. S. Code § 1841 (passed long after the Roe v Wade decision) not only defines a human fetus as 'a child in the womb' and as "a human being in ANY stage of development" - it also makes it a crime of MURDER to "intentionally kill an unborn child" during a criminal act. As I indicated in round one of this debate [R1], this (above cite) is precisely the kind of law that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was anticipating - when he said "if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case (for abortion) here, would you not? " I tried to make it clear to Con that Supreme Court Justice Potter was in arguably aware of the fact that once it is established that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a "person" under law, they would automatically be entitled to the same Constitutional rights and 'equal protections' that all other persons are entitled to and the pro-abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) agreed [4]. I tried to make my opponent aware of the fact that even the former Planned Parenthood President (Gloria Feldt) echoed the same conclusion - when she said; "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot. [5]" Gloria Feldt made that comment in opposition to the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that was about to be passed into law. And she lost in her efforts to stop the passing of that law. All of the above was proffered in this debate - to show that the personhood of 'children in the womb' in 'any stage of development' has now been LEGALLY established - at least for the 'children in the womb' who are victims in a criminal act. While my opponent is quick to point it out - that the same Federal Law (18 U. S. Code § 1841) also makes exceptions to its own conclusions to (for now) keep abortions legal and to prohibit the prosecution of women who seek abortions. . . My opponent seems oblivious to my repeated efforts to inform him - that those exceptions are what is being challenged as Un-Constitutional in this debate. The Constitutional CaseThroughout this debate, I have tried to share arguments and sources to enlighten my opponent on the fact that UnConstitutional laws (and or rulings) are null and void [6]. I tried repeatedly, using the injustice of Slavery as an example - to make the case for how 'legal does not always mean lawful. ' My opponent offers only a semantic case using dictionary definitions to argue to the contrary. I have argued repeatedly that the Constitution matters and that it can not be so easily dismissed but that doesn't stop my opponent from removing the Constitutionality aspect away from his "syllogism [R2]" in round two, completely. I ask our voters to consider that semantic arguments such as the one posed by my opponent do not take place in a vacuum. Objectively, "that which is Legal is only lawful when the law itself is Constitutional. "Legally" (sic) denying basic human and Constitutional rights to any group of human beings is not lawful because it is not Constitutional. "I have shared the relevant text of our Constitution in this debate to show how 'all persons' are Constitutionally entitled to the 'equal protections of our laws'. I have shown how our State and Federal Fetal Homicide laws (as Gloria Feldt and Justice Potter predicted) do in fact establish the personhood of children in the womb. I have directed my opponent to cases where people are already being charged and convicted with MURDER for illegally aborting 'children in the womb. [7]' . https://www.youtube.com...My opponent may claim that those "Abortions are Murders" only in the context that the woman is victimized too. However, that claim would not be true. There is nothing in the Fetal Homicide laws that would prohibit the prosecution of the women themselves - for their part in illegal (sic) abortions. Indeed illegal (sic) abortions can be prosecuted as murders - even when the women WANTS the abortion herself [8]. I ask our voters how many examples will it take where someone has already been charged with the MURDER of a 'child in the womb' will it take for you to agree that the statement 'Abortion is Murder' is true - at the very least in those cases? What will it take for you to finally see that UnConstitutional Laws that deny any group of human beings their rights and protections is not lawful because they are not laws at all - if they are not Constitutional [6]. ____________________ Closing Remarks I remind our voters of the fact that this is a DDO debate. No matter the outcome, the allegation that "abortions are murders" will continue to be made as more and more laws are being passed that establish the personhood of 'children in the womb' and as more and more people are arrested and prosecuted for the MURDERS of children in the womb. Before you vote, I ask each of our voters to consider this question quietly and honestly for yourself. "How can a child in the womb be legally considered a 'person' enough that a stranger killing them (even) by accident in a criminal act can be prosecuted for MURDER. . . but that same child is somehow NOT a person if the mother targets them for an abortion? " Thanks to my opponent again for sending this challenge. Win or lose, this allegation will not be going away. There is a serious contradiction in our laws and sooner or later our Supreme Court will have to reconcile their historical ruling on Roe with the more recent laws and criminal convictions under fetal homicide laws that already make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb. R1 - This debate, round oneR2 - This debate, round two [2] 18 U. S. Code § 1841 - . http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3] 18 U. S. Code § 1111 - . http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4] Roe v Wade oral arguments - [5] Gloria Feldt Comments - . http://www.newsweek.com...[6] When a Law is not a Law - . https://supreme.justia.com...[7] Kansas - Abortion Murder - . https://www.youtube.com...[8] Stomped Out - . http://www.houstonpress.com...