Just to weigh in, not to argue with you of course:
1. One should ask a person who supports argument 1, “Did the authors of the 14th Amendment envision anchor babies?” When of course they answer “no” their argument is destroyed. Or ask, “Did the founders envision the Internet vis a vis the first Amendment?” When they answer no their argument is destroyed (because by such perverse limiting logic, the first Amendment protection can’t apply to the Internet, since the Internet wasn’t envisioned by the founders.)
Finally it’s sickeningly ironic such an argument would be used in the first place in defense of Nationalized Abortion. As the entire argument for forcing states to permit it rest not on anything specific in the Constitution but on the “penumbra” thereof, which is, by definition, “not envisioned by the founders”. Hypocrisy heal thyself!
2. This is a common misapplication of the “invader” argument which can take many forms. Basically it says an invader of personal space has no right to said space uninvited.
Certainly true enough but it ignores one key fact: the baby inside the womb didn’t “choose” to “invade” the woman. It’s a subtle but significant difference that differentiates it from a mere parasite.
A better analogy (and one that destroys #2) is to compare the baby in the womb to, ironically, another baby but one outside the womb, left on one’s doorstep by a poor mother. (Note this can be done since the one making the argument in #2 has already conceded the “thing” in the womb is a human person)
Does that baby have the moral right to be cared for, even by a stranger? That is, does the stranger have a moral duty to care for a baby that’s not even his own?
Every truly moral person with even a sliver of a conscience must say, “Yes, that oerson should at least care for the baby until and unless it can be found a more permanent home or until it grows up to care for itself.” This then destroys #2.
1. The Founders were perfectly well aware of the process of pregnancy and birth, though their understanding of it was a lot less complete than ours. They were also perfectly familiar with the concept of abortion. Which was legal throughout the US till the later third of the 19th century, in the first three or four months. Abortions after that time were seldom attempted, as medical knowledge was inadequate.
I agree that this attitude towards abortion was largely because it was believed, inaccurately, that the child wasn’t really alive until that point. But that doesn’t mean protection of the unborn is retroactively inserted back into the Constitution.
Since the Constitution says nothing about abortion one way or the other, the 10th Amendment applies and the whole issue should have been left entirely up to the states. Where I would personally support considerably more restrictions than at present.
BTW, I’m not sure why you think anchor babies are relevant. From the Founding, the US has been jus solis, so children born here have always been assumed to be citizens. Until the late 19th century there were almost no real restrictions on immigration, so the concept of anchor baby had no meaning.
2. Better arguments here. But it does seem remarkably unfair to put such a great burden on the female relative to the male. If we’re going to outlaw abortion, I suggest much stronger paternity laws. You knock somebody up, we track you down and you pay for the next 18 years.
Don’t want to pay a significant chunk of your future income for a couple of decades? Keep it in your pants.