Posted on 07/08/2017 1:35:04 PM PDT by Kaslin
I once participated in a debate where I was asked to describe the constitutional rights afforded to the unborn. For me, the answer was easy because I've studied the Founders. For the other guy – who completely dodged the question – it was just another opportunity to spout some platform slogans about choice and women's rights.
Many people argue abortion based on what's fair, but our nation's laws are based not on the left's version of "fairness" any more than statutes (ought to) derive from government-mandated compassion. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and our Founding Fathers provide incontrovertible insight as to their understanding of the unalienable right to life.
The very first sentence of the Constitution declares that the document's central purpose includes the aim to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." As Glenn Beck notes, "[w]ho are our posterity, if not our unborn children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren?" To deny the Constitution's application to future generations is to erroneously deduce that the Founders intended their labor to last only a few years. Every constitutional provision that secures a human right was designed just as much for the protection of the rights of the unborn as for the rights of the born.
James Wilson, one of six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a member of the first Supreme Court, lectured on constitutional law with Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in attendance – ostensibly endorsing his interpretations. As such, scholars typically concede that "Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Life may begin at conception but you will never get the majority of Americans to agree with that. Why? Because some birth control pills will stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. So passing a constitutional amendment saying life begins at conception would outlaw those.
I think we in the pro-life movement should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think we could get second and third trimester abortions outlawed if we focused on that.
Does anyone know if James Wilson was argued in those cases, or since, in cases pertaining to abortion?
James Wilson, one of six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a member of the first Supreme Court, lectured on constitutional law with Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in attendance – ostensibly endorsing his interpretations. As such, scholars typically concede that "Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally."
During one such lecture, "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals," Wilson clarified: "In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."
Wilson's explanation unequivocally guarantees the right to life for a fetus. "When the infant is first able to stir in the womb" refers to the "quickening," which Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, Volume 3 (originally published in 1839) describes as "the sensation a mother has of the motion of the child she has conceived." This was the moment in which a mother of the 18th century would know for certain that she was pregnant.
Abortion is murder and everyone knows it. The only people who think abortion should be legal are people who hate the US Constitution. And that would be the globalists who love a silly utopia where one government at the top controls everyone in the world. Thankfully, God does not use a fake utopia to maintain total power.
Every baby is a baby from conception forward.
Babies must be protected starting at conception.
It seems odd if a pregnant is killed in an automobile accident the person at fault is charged with double homicide, but if a woman want a doctor to kill her unborn child then Democrats claim it perfectly okay. So is murder a murder except when it is not a murder?
Absolutely, start with the easy answers to the question.
If a child is at the stage where it can be born and survive on its own, it is a living human being with rights.
Then move on to the next question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.