Involuntary Servitude

[Archivist]

The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically forbids involuntary servitude "except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted."

Some in this Forum believe that a victim of rape or incest should not be allowed the option of having an abortion.

Why wouldn't requiring a woman who has been a victim of rape or incest to carry a child to term against her will qualify as "involuntary servitude" and therefore violate the woman's Constitutional rights?

 

[Atlantians]

The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically forbids involuntary servitude "except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted."

Some in this Forum believe that a victim of rape or incest should not be allowed the option of having an abortion.

Why wouldn't requiring a woman who has been a victim of rape or incest to carry a child to term against her will qualify as "involuntary servitude" and therefore violate the woman's Constitutional rights?

That Amendment was dealing with Slavery.
Not a normal biological process that involves the development of a living human being.

Thus the Amendment has no application to the issue of abortion outside of the minds of those who refuse to read the Constitution in context.

 

[Archivist]

That Amendment was dealing with Slavery.
Not a normal biological process that involves the development of a living human being.

Thus the Amendment has no application to the issue of abortion outside of the minds of those who refuse to read the Constitution in context.

Incorrect. The amendment specifically bans both slavery and involuntary servitude.

If it was intended to ban only slavery, as you claim, the provisions regarding involuntary servitude would not have been included.

Involuntary servitude is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "the condition of one forced to labor--for pay or not--for another by coercion or imprisonment."

If we were to require a rape victim to carry a fetus to term against her will, that would clearly meet the terms of the definition.

 

[Atlantians]

Incorrect. The amendment specifically bans both slavery and involuntary servitude.

They are effectively identical.

If it was intended to ban only slavery, as you claim, the provisions regarding involuntary servitude would not have been included.

Unless they were very similar things and this was done to cover all of the bases.

A proper common biological process can not in any sense be considered "involuntary servitude".

Involuntary servitude is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "the condition of one forced to labor--for pay or not--for another by coercion or imprisonment."

Do you define a child as a human person from the moment of conception?

If we were to require a rape victim to carry a fetus to term against her will, that would clearly meet the terms of the definition.

Only if you utterly ignore the cultural context of the amendment and ignore all sense of meaning in language.

 

[musikismylife]

Because if she didn't carry the baby, that would be murder. She would have to kill the baby. All laws have exceptions. It is as if someone came up to me and said "hey, work for me for 9 months or kill this person" Choosing to kill the person would still be considered murder, and I would still be convicted. And, yes, I am aware that abortion isn't illegal. My viewpoint is that it should be.

 

[Atlantians]

Good for you Musik.

 

[Archivist]

They are effectively identical.

No, they are very different. Slavery requires ownership of an individual. Involuntary servitude does not. You really need to pay more attention to definitions.

A proper common biological process can not in any sense be considered "involuntary servitude".

You are correct that a woman becoming pregnant as a result of rape is a biological process that cannot be consiidered involuntary servitude. However, requiring her to carry the sead of her attacker against her will is involuntary servitude.

Do you define a child as a human person from the moment of conception?

Irrelevent.

Only if you utterly ignore the cultural context of the amendment and ignore all sense of meaning in language.

The language of the amendment is clear.

 

[Archivist]

Because if she didn't carry the baby, that would be murder. She would have to kill the baby. All laws have exceptions. It is as if someone came up to me and said "hey, work for me for 9 months or kill this person" Choosing to kill the person would still be considered murder, and I would still be convicted. And, yes, I am aware that abortion isn't illegal. My viewpoint is that it should be.

It would not be murder, as murder requires the illegal killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

 

[Atlantians]

It would not be murder, as murder requires the illegal killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

By which definition to you claim it is not murder?
The Biblical one? The Legal term's definition? Which one?

 

[Archivist]

By which definition to you claim it is not murder?
The Biblical one? The Legal term's definition? Which one?

Murder is a Common Law crime that did not exist in Biblical times. It requires that the victim must have been "born alive." It requires an illegal killing. It requires "malice aforethought." There is no Biblical equlivant.

The killing of a fetus might qualify as homocide, but not as murder.