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.
You make good points but the only reason I mentioned “anchor babies” is because that’s what proponents of such a concept get out of the 14th Amendment. I’m not saying it’s correct, just responding to the argument in question.
Because surely, an advocate of abortion would support the concept of an anchor baby. (Ironically). So it’s turning their own logic against them WRT the 14th Amendment.