There was a recent article written by Jill Lepore on the issue of abortion in the constitution. Firstly, she recognizes that Roe v Wade wasn’t on its own merits well-argued. She states:

I don’t happen to think Roe was well argued. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early analysis—that grounding the right in equality rather than privacy might have been a sounder approach.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-there-are-no-women-in-the-constitution

Of course, men wouldn’t be equal given such a position. Men cannot have abortions nor force those bearing their children. So, she still would be incorrect, but abortionists are gonna try anything to justify their position. Of course, even if she was right it doesn’t matter to me what the constitution states in comparison to moral arguments. If the constitution allows for murder, then why care what it states?

There is nothing in that document about women at all. Most consequentially, there is nothing in that document—or in the circumstances under which it was written—that suggests its authors imagined women as part of the political community embraced by the phrase “We the People.” There were no women among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were no women among the hundreds of people who participated in ratifying conventions in the states. There were no women judges. There were no women legislators. At the time, women could neither hold office nor run for office, and, except in New Jersey, and then only fleetingly, women could not vote. Legally, most women did not exist as persons.

They existed as persons with lesser rights than men. This doesn’t mean the constitution allowed for the murder, torture, and rape of women. What does she mean by person? If she means someone pertaining to having natural rights like life, liberty, and freedom of religion, then they are and were persons. If women aren’t mentioned in the constitution, then it seems that they wouldn’t have any moral worth whatsoever. If women’s rights and infants in the womb are represented by the constitution by their absence, she argues, that we can simply maintain abortion is valid given the absence of their mention. But this cuts both ways. Is she maintaining that the constitution can support men’s rights to ‘abort’ full-grown women? Given her logic, women have as much a right to live as infants.