Abortion on demand is unconstitutional according to our founders.

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,004
✟54,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One very important government function is to protect the safety of its citizens, which should include its unborn citizens.

James Wilson, one of the signers of the constitution, and a Supreme Court justice who attended the constitutional conventions where the constitution was hammered out, stated that the founding fathers included the unborn as well as the born, as having the god-given and thus inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus abortion on demand is actually unconstitutional, since it denies the unborn humans their God-given right to life.

And yes, it’s a human that is in the womb, as every medical manual of human embryology states that human life begins at conception, and the mothers rights do not cancel out her unborn human child’s right to life.
 

.Mikha'el.

Young Fogie
Staff member
Supervisor
Supporter
May 22, 2004
31,980
5,880
37
British Columbia
Visit site
✟781,257.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Thus abortion on demand is actually unconstitutional, since it denies the unborn humans their God-given right to life.

And I suppose an unqualified layman like you knows better than the pre-eminent jurists of your country what is constitutional and not? Give your head a shake.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,004
✟54,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
James Wilson, one of the signers of the constitution, and a Supreme Court justice who attended the constitutional conventions where the constitution was hammered out, stated that the founding fathers included the unborn as well as the born, as having the god-given and thus inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I guess you missed this, stating WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION SAID on the matter:

James Wilson, one of the signers of the constitution, and a Supreme Court justice, who attended the constitutional conventions where the constitution was hammered out, stated that the founding fathers included the unborn as well as the born, as having the god-given and this inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
46,318
8,963
Georgia
✟639,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And I suppose an unqualified layman like you knows better than the pre-eminent jurists of your country what is constitutional and not? Give your head a shake.

The "pre-eminent jurists" in our country used to think abortion was murder... so does the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

GOD Shines Forth!

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 6, 2019
2,615
2,052
United States
✟332,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
And I suppose an unqualified layman like you knows better than the pre-eminent jurists of your country what is constitutional and not? Give your head a shake.

"Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods?
Do you judge the children of man uprightly?
No, in your hearts you devise wrongs;
your hands deal out violence on earth."
-Psalm 58
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
788
401
36
Midwest
✟97,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
James Wilson, one of the signers of the constitution, and a Supreme Court justice who attended the constitutional conventions where the constitution was hammered out, stated that the founding fathers included the unborn as well as the born, as having the god-given and thus inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Can you provide a source for this? If your argument is "this guy said this thing" it seems incumbent to say where you are getting this information. Can you provide the exact work (preferably with page numbers)?

I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, for the record, but I have to express considerable skepticism on this claim without a primary source. I would think that if he said this, pro-life people would be citing it constantly, but this is the first I've heard of it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
36,316
18,259
US
✟1,199,387.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can you provide a source for this? If your argument is "this guy said this thing" it seems incumbent to say where you are getting this information. Can you provide the exact work (preferably with page numbers)?

I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, for the record, but I have to express considerable skepticism on this claim without a primary source. I would think that if he said this, pro-life people would be citing it constantly, but this is the first I've heard of it.

I did Chad's work for him. There is this lesson to law students by Wilson saying:

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.a 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.
Collected Works of James Wilson, vol. 2 | Online Library of Liberty

I would point out, however, that the personal opinion of one of the Constitutional delegates, even though later an associate Supreme Court justice, is not Constitutional writ. It's just that man's personal opinion.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
788
401
36
Midwest
✟97,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I did Chad's work for him. There is this lesson to law students by Wilson saying:

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.a 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.
Collected Works of James Wilson, vol. 2 | Online Library of Liberty

I would point out, however, that the personal opinion of one of the Constitutional delegates, even though later an associate Supreme Court justice, is not Constitutional writ. It's just that man's personal opinion.
Thanks for that. If that is what the original post was relying on, however, I don't think it supports its claim at all. The claim that was made was:

"James Wilson, one of the signers of the constitution, and a Supreme Court justice who attended the constitutional conventions where the constitution was hammered out, stated that the founding fathers included the unborn as well as the born, as having the god-given and thus inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

But that is not at all what James Wilson said. He says nothing about right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and thus holding no real legal power). Wilson does not even refer to the similar-but-still-distinct language of the Fourth Amendment which says no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." For the record, back then the Fourth Amendment, and Bill of Rights in general, applied only to federal law, not state law.

Additionally, note he says "In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb." This refers to quickening, which occurs 15-20 weeks into a pregnancy. Now, if we're supposed to accept his statement as indicating a constitutional prohibition on abortion on demand, that would only be saying that abortion on demand is unconstitutional at the point of quickening, not unconstitutional period. Granted, that would be more of a prohibition than some states currently have. Nevertheless, it should be noted that he identifies quickening as the start of life (at least in terms of "the contemplation of law"), not conception.

But perhaps most problematically, he does not say this is unconstitutional. He is not even referring to the constitution. He is referring to laws. Now, English common law prohibited abortion after quickening, and most (I don't think all) states adopted that idea into their laws, prohibiting abortion after that point. He is thus making the factual point that, by law (not by the constitution), abortion could not be performed after the point of quickening. Just because a law prohibits something does not mean the constitution does.

So ultimately, all that James Wilson's quote here says is that English common law, and American law in general at that time, prohibited abortion at the point of quickening onward, not that the constitution prohibited anything.

Again, I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I concur strongly with John Hart Ely (who was pro-choice, I should stress) in his argument that Roe v. Wade was "not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." One may see his law review article on that here:
The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade

Some parts are now obsolete (this was written back in the 1970's, soon after Roe v. Wade was decided) but the most important points are valid.

Nevertheless, unless there was a different quote of John Wilson's that was in mind in the opening post, to appeal to this quote of James Wilson as claiming abortion on demand is unconstitutional is simply a non-starter. He's not talking about the Constitution and even if he was, he would only be saying it was unconstitutional after the point of quickening. Which would still be better policy from the pro-life standpoint than what we currently have, but is not a flat ban on the practice as the original post indicated.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,519
Tarnaveni
✟790,311.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess you missed this, stating WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION SAID on the matter:

James Wilson, one of the signers of the constitution, and a Supreme Court justice, who attended the constitutional conventions where the constitution was hammered out, stated that the founding fathers included the unborn as well as the born, as having the god-given and this inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

At the time it was written life was considered to begin when the baby ‘quickened’, i.e when it could be felt moving in the womb.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,296
8,495
Milwaukee
✟410,534.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One very important government function is to protect the safety of its citizens, which should include its unborn citizens.

But the unborn are not citizens. Even the born do not automatically become citizens unless the mother already is one. Moms must decide if they have enough food for more children.

8fbb3e52087e4662a0d131c14a62fc72.jpg
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,004
✟54,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Additionally, note he says "In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb." This refers to quickening, which occurs 15-20 weeks into a pregnancy.

The founders didn’t have the modern medical science that we have today, that states human life begins at conception - so today we know that life begins at the beginning, and thus the zygote is 100% human, and therefore the inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, given us by our creator belongs to them in the first day of life, not just when the mother feels her baby moving.

And since neither governments nor courts give us the right to life, no government or court can take it away.

Every medical manual of human embryology states that human life begins at conception, when the egg is fertilized, and the zygote is formed, BTW.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
36,316
18,259
US
✟1,199,387.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The founders didn’t have the modern medical science that we have today, that states human life begins at conception - so today we know that life begins at the beginning, and thus the zygote is 100% human, and therefore the inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, given us by our creator belongs to them in the first day of life, not just when the mother feels her baby moving.

And since neither governments nor courts give us the right to life, no government or court can take it away.

Every medical manual of human embryology states that human life begins at conception, when the egg is fertilized, and the zygote is formed, BTW.

In the late 1700s, physicians absolutely knew that the embryo was developing within the mother prior to "quickening." They had seen hundreds of thousands of still-birth embryo cadavers and they understood the normal progress of pregnancy. They didn't have modern taxonomical terms such as "zygote," but they knew by then that a being was developing for weeks prior to "quickening," and they knew from missed periods, abdomen growth, and other signs that a pregnancy was in very early stages. Yet, common law did not give the rights of "humanity" to that being until quickening.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,004
✟54,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But the unborn are not citizens. Even the born do not automatically become citizens unless the mother already is one. Moms must decide if they have enough food for more children.

8fbb3e52087e4662a0d131c14a62fc72.jpg
Taking your logic to its conclusion would mean a lack of food would be sufficient reason to kill her already born children.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,296
8,495
Milwaukee
✟410,534.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Taking your logic to its conclusion would mean a lack of food would be sufficient reason to kill her already born children.
Or start a village war against other competing people in the area to gain resources for your own group. Wait....that does happen. That's what war is.

This is how desperate people get when they don't have the resources to care for their children. The correct solution for abortion is to find recourses for families to live on. As people become educated, they start family planning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
4,698
4,027
51
undisclosed Bunker
✟179,656.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
A Does anyone have stats on how many Christian women get abortions?
B Does anyone have stats on how many Christian males impregnate Christian women who then get abortions?
C Does anyone have stats on how many abortions are compulsory (as in, compelled by the state?)

If you can get A + B + C = 0, and then convert everyone to Christianity, that might solve the problem.

I would suggest starting with whichever of A, B or C is the biggest number and going from there. Can't hurt.

Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
4,698
4,027
51
undisclosed Bunker
✟179,656.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Taking your logic to its conclusion would mean a lack of food would be sufficient reason to kill her already born children.

To be fair, taking a lack of food to it's logical conclusion would also kill her already born children.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
36,316
18,259
US
✟1,199,387.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A Does anyone have stats on how many Christian women get abortions?
B Does anyone have stats on how many Christian males impregnate Christian women who then get abortions?
C Does anyone have stats on how many abortions are compulsory (as in, compelled by the state?)

If you can get A + B + C = 0, and then convert everyone to Christianity, that might solve the problem.

I would suggest starting with whichever of A, B or C is the biggest number and going from there. Can't hurt.

Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008

According to your link, more than half of abortions in the US are by Christian women--with Catholics making up 24%. I've seen other surveys showing Christians making up to 70% of abortions in the US.

If the Christians solved the problem among Christians, that would cut the abortion rate in half.

This is a do-able thing, if Christians would deal with abortion on the basis of loving one another instead of trying to criminalize one another.

Loving one another--making sure we are all doing okay within the Body of Christ-- works. Raising children to love righteousness instead of the way of the world works. Creating an environment within the Body of Christ that is protective of our children works.

Attempting to use carnal, worldly methods to achieve the Godly righteousness does not work.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
8,985
3,209
✟742,129.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
One very important government function is to protect the safety of its citizens, which should include its unborn citizens.

James Wilson, one of the signers of the constitution, and a Supreme Court justice who attended the constitutional conventions where the constitution was hammered out, stated that the founding fathers included the unborn as well as the born, as having the god-given and thus inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus abortion on demand is actually unconstitutional, since it denies the unborn humans their God-given right to life.

And yes, it’s a human that is in the womb, as every medical manual of human embryology states that human life begins at conception, and the mothers rights do not cancel out her unborn human child’s right to life.
the constitution is not full proof and can be open to interpretation through the unspecific or ambiguous language it may use even if it goes against the spirit of those who sign it. it would seem James Wilson's had a view regarding the born as well as the unborn and this perhaps was similar to his peers but the constitution itself doesn't actually go to that detail. James Wilson's comment is simply that, a comment that is of the constitution but not a part of the constitution. You could make a case that it was de facto unconstitutional upon being written but because the constitution doesn't go to that detail you cannot claim that it continues to be regarded the same way. Even if proven that every one of the singers signed another document clarifying that it was the born and unborn that document itself is not the constitution and only could be used to establish a consensus of those individuals but not authority over how the constitution should be interpreted.
 
Upvote 0