More to the point, the Constituiton does not declare that unborn people are not people. Since unborn people are, in fact, people, then the duty of the Republic is to err on the side of caution and treat those people hanging on their umbilical cords with the full rights of people who have had their umbilicals cut.
The Constitution logically implies that the unborn are not people because it mandates a Census in Article 1, Section 2. The Census is to be an "actual Enumeration," not a projected count, of "all persons in the US," except Native Americans who don't pay taxes. There is a warrant here for seeing how the first Census defines persons.
In the first Census questions: all householders, all free white men aged 16 years and above, all free white men below 16 years, all free white women, all other free persons, all black slaves (to be counted 3/5ths). Here, "all other free persons" clearly means all free men and women who are not white, e.g., free blacks, free Native Americans if they do pay taxes.
From this, we know that women are persons. The age stipulation, 16 years and above, is because all colonies and then confederated states made free white men in that category bring a gun and join the militia. It's an age eligibility. This one and the three in the Articles of the Constitution all assume an age count that begins at birth - a very old custom practiced in America and also in Western Europe. The unborn months/weeks are not included. They can't be. Human pregnancy has never lasted as much as a year and everyone knew it. Furthermore, even if they knew they were pregnant, women of that time and of the 19th century and early 20th did not know how many unborn were inside them. You would have to project a count, and that would violate Article 1, Section 2.
Nothing changed in the age count or the Census in the period from that time to the present. Fetuses are not persons anywhere in the Constitution. So-called rights they have are contingent on live birth.
And then it comes down to a matter of weighing the relative rights of two people, the woman who managed to get herself pregnant and child who is totally innocent.
So there aren't two people.
The woman may suffer a small inconvenience for carrying a child to term. The child suffers permanent mortal harm when it it killed to avoid the mother's minor inconvenience.
Women can die, be permanently injured, or seriously disabled because of medically unforeseen complications in late pregnancy and childbirth. How dare you even use the expression "small inconvenience"?
You do not know what happens to the unborn in a case of abortion. It is entirely possible that a woman can have an abortion of a pregnancy by the wrong guy or with a serious disability and then get pregnant four months later by the right guy or with a perfect fetus and give birth. How do you know it's not the same future child, but with an improved body? You don't.
What is the legal authority granted to the courts to sever the Constitutional protections guaranteed to "we the people" on a political whim?
There's no biological science supporting this action, so what actions justify that?
What allows the courts to usurp to role of the legislature and commence writing definitions? Since the court is not a legislative body, the court has no business writing definitions and pretending said definitions have the effect of law.
It was no political whim when Roe v Wade was decided. Women are persons and the Constitution has to protect them. There's logical implication that the unborn aren't persons and it's a good thing because women and the unborn can't be protected equally. If I have to choose, I'll do what the SC justices did - I know women are constitutional persons, so I'll protect them.
