[Amendment10]

I appreciate what you are suggesting about Amendment V. But personally, I cannot accept that constitutional lawmakers had things like abortion in mind as they drafted Amendment V. In fact, note that Sec. 1 of the 14th A. guarantees constitutional protections to those people born in the USA as opposed to people conceived here.

On the other hand...

As someone else in cyberspace has pointed out, not only is the word "Posterity" as used in the Preamble to the Constitution a reference to future generations of people, but have your considered the following from my posts?

Given that the USSC thought that it had the license to use Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a mere, private letter help justify its scandalous interpretation of the scope of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion, surely the Court should have used Jefferson's "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence to help justify finding the rights of unborn children in the 9th Amendment. After, all, Jefferson could just have easily written that all men are born equal. Instead, Jefferson evidently reflected the beliefs of the signers of the DoI that God-given rights start from the moment of conception.

And not only did the USSC fail to weigh the 9th A. protected rights of unborn children against the right to have an abortion, the Court also "overlooked" the 9th A. protected right of a man to be a father.

[Sun]

“But personally, I cannot accept that constitutional lawmakers had things like abortion in mind as they drafted Amendment V. “

I think that you are correct that they didn’t have abortion in mind, because they probably never dreamed that abortion would be the law of the land, and if they HAD thought of that, I’m sure they would have spelled it out, that by life, that also included defending the life of the unborn.

Also, Mark Levin was saying that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on natural law, and most certainly, it is unnatural to kill an unborn baby in it’s mother’s womb.