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.