Tomi Lahren recently demonstrated that she does not understand nor support the Constitution.  She did this when she claimed she has to be ‘pro-choice’ or she cannot claim to support the Constitution.  She said that claiming to support the Constitution while being ‘pro-life’ would make her a hypocrite.  SHE IS WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS!  Here’s the video of her comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOT3EiKCL-w

First, abortion is a violation of Natural Law — period!

Second, the Constitution specifically states that it protects the rights of the un-born.  The preamble of the Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The definition of ‘posterity‘ is ‘future generations:’ i.e. the un-born.

But more than this, the founders did not see the Declaration of Independence as being separable from the Constitution.  They understood them as being joined.  In fact, the Declaration, and not the Constitution, is the founding document of the United States.  The two documents were separated by the Progressives, so they could argue that our system of government is ‘secular.’  But the Declaration is the foundation of the Constitution.  Without the Declaration, you do not have a right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  These things are not protected in the Constitution, and, under the modern, Progressive interpretation of the Constitution, if a right is not specifically protected under the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t exist.  This is how they can make the argument that abortion is not murder.

But the founders joined the Constitution to the Declaration, and the Declaration clearly states that life is a right given by the Creator from the moment of creation.  The Constitution then states that its purpose is to protect that right.  This means that the Constitution prohibits abortion — and the Supreme Court actually knows this (they just don’t care).  Any rational person who submits to Natural Law and the rule of law under it knows that abortion is murder.  And anyone who does not understand that Natural law and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit abortion is lawless period!

THE FOUNDERS WORDS AND EXAMPLE

As with most of the legal questions we think the founders never considered,, if we would bother to look, we will usually find that they not only addressed those issues, but they explained their legality under the Constitution and demonstrated intent by their own actions.  In the case of abortion, the founders considered it murder and, thus, illegal under Natural law, Common Law and the Constitution:

“Human life from its commencement to its close is protected by the common law. In the contemplations of law life begins when the infant is fist able to stir in the womb by the law is protected.”

— James Wilson, signer of the Declaration and Constitution

At the time, the earliest a woman could know she was pregnant was when she first felt her child move inside her.   This is because they did not have the means to tell sooner than this, as we do today.  If they had, the founders would have used language stating that the child is protected from whatever point the mother knew she was pregnant.  Some have argued this is not the case, but they do so only by ignoring what the founders said.  For example, Wilson expanded upon his position on abortion:

“Some nations have given parents the power of life and death over their children. But here in America, we have denied the power of life and death to parents.”

Thomas Jefferson, writing as a member of the Virginia legislature at the time, also stated that abortion is murder: the intentional taking of an innocent life.

This is one time when Glenn Beck is at his best.  Here is the first of a four-part series that lets the founders speak for themselves.  It does use research from Dr. David Barton, who has been personally attacked by those on the political Left.  But this is because Barton does not quote Left-leaning historians to support his work: he quotes the founders, themselves!  Dr. Barton owns the largest collection of writings from the time of America’s founding outside of the Library of Congress.  This is why he is attacked: because he actually owns the truth, and the truth proves that the founders rejected much of the Progressive agenda, and so does the Constitution.

The argument that a woman has a ‘right’ to abort her child because she has a right to control her body is a false argument — period!  This is a violation of Natural Law on several points.  It is past time we understand this, and understand that those who refuse to do so are lawless.

First, by definition, the un-born child is a separate person.  The life being ended is not the mother, nor is it part of the mother’s body.  It is a person all unto itself.  The un-born child has it’s own DNA and its own free will.  Therefore, it is a unique person which, by definition, makes abortion murder — period!

Furthermore, the claim that the mother has a ‘right’ to murder the un-born is a violation of Natural Law.  No one has a ‘right’ to end a life — not even their own!  The ending of a life is an attack on that person’s free will.  Even if it is that person taking their own life, it is still an attack on their own will.  Therefore, there can be no ‘right’ to murder another.  It is a violation of Natural Law to even make such a claim.

Finally, under Natural Law, the mother has a duty to the un-born child.  The moment she has sex, she has accepted any and all responsibility for the result.  If she is not willing to accept the possibility of pregnancy, she should not have sex.  This duty to any possible child is inherent in Natural Law.  When we commit others to a course of action without their consent, we have a duty to them.  Since the child has no ability to consent to its own creation, this imparts a duty to protect any child created to the mother who created it (father too).

This responsibility to the un-born supersedes the argument of abortion in case of the mother’s life being threatened.  The willful engagement in the act of sex binds the mother to her duty to the un-born child.  This extends to the point of — if possible — sacrificing one’s own life to preserve the un-born.  The only time there is even a possibility of making a case for aborting an unborn is if the mother will certainly die before the un-born matures to a stage where it can survive outside the womb.  Such conditions are extremely rare, and it still leaves us with the fact that we are trying to justify the killing of an innocent person and abandonment of personal responsibility.

The only possible exception to this is pregnancy as the result of rape.  In this case, both the mother and child are innocent victims.  However, no matter what argument we make to justify abortion of a child conceived out of rape, the un-born child remains an innocent party, in which case, abortion is murder.

There is one last aspect to this issue: the responsibility of the father.  A father is equally as responsible for the care of the un-born as the mother.  He accepts this responsibility when he willingly engages in the act of sex with the mother.  There is no way to separate the parents from their duty to their child.  It is inherent under Natural law in that they created a new life without its consent.  Thus, they are responsible for the care of that child until such time as the child can totally care for itself.