Rape, Abortion and Involuntary Servitude

Archivist said:

if the rape victim does not want to carry the fetus to term does this not place her into a position of involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment?

Click to expand...

DaveW-Ohev said:

Perhaps. So does a life threatening injury or dread illness.

Click to expand...

Archivist said:

Section 1 of the 13th Amendment provides as follows:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Some who oppose abortion go so far as to insist that even women who were victims of rape should be required to carry the fetus to term. However, if the rape victim does not want to carry the fetus to term does this not place her into a position of involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment?

In addition the 14th Amendment provides that citizenship begins at birth. If a rape victim is a US citizen and is required to carry the fetus to term, wouldn't that give a non-citizen greater rights than a citizen?

Thoughts please.

I posted this same thread in the Christians only section, but am also posting it here so it will be open to non-Christians.

Click to expand...

Archivist said:

Agreed that it is not slavery, but is it involuntary servitude if a woman is impregnated against her will by a rapist and is denied the option of an abortion.

Click to expand...

Belk said:

No. It is still just a pregnancy. I see what you are saying but being denied a medical procedure for whatever reason is not tantamount to being forced to labor on behalf of another with no say in the matter. It is, in my opinion, of equivalent moral repugnance but that is about as far as I think you can reasonably stretch it.

Click to expand...

keith99 said:

Would being forced to carry someone everywhere I went be considered involuntary servitude?

Remember this is an issue not of denying a medical procedure, but attempting to make that procedure illegal because the fetus is a human being. In that context the pregnant woman is laboring for that person and if it is against her will it is involuntary servitude.

Click to expand...

Belk said:

Lets try a hypothetical.

Lets say there is an odd legislator out there and he writes a law that all sexually active woman have to carry around and care for a bird. The bird must go everywhere she goes and she must feed it whenever she herself eats. That is the only restraint placed upon her. She is still free to go wherever she wishes and do anything she wants. Would you call that involuntary servitude?

Click to expand...

KitKatMatt said:

Have you ever taken care of a bird?

The lady can't go "wherever" she wishes and do "anything" she wants. There are plenty of places that don't allow pets.

Birds are labor intensive, they are like toddlers, you must taken them with you wherever you are or they will get so upset that they may start self-mutilating. This includes taking them from room to room, and outside when you go somewhere. They also scream constantly, poop constantly, and have really painful bites.

Many people with pet birds can't talk on the phone or watch tv because the bird will flip out and start screaming.

Oh, and they need specialized care, from food to cages to toys to vets. They can easily rack up a huge bill.

Yes, I would call that involuntary servitude. Did the woman want a bird and get it willingly? Then it's not. Is the woman forced to have a bird*? Then it is.

*Forcing someone who is sexually active to care for something they didn't want is still force, no matter if being sexually active was a choice.

Click to expand...

Archivist said:

And forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term, a pregnancy that was not of her doing, would go far beyond that. What if she enjoyed a galss of wine with her dinner? Well that's out for nine months. What if she was a professional sports player or swimsuit model? Well that would be limited past a certain point in the pregnancy. What if she lived far from a doctor? Well, she would have to take the time out of her schedule for a long drive. All this because of something that was not of her doing. Yes, that sounds like involuntary servitude to me.

Click to expand...

Belk said:

Well you took the analogy a lot further then I had intended but point made.

Click to expand...

KitKatMatt said:

I'm sorry if I went a little nuts on that, lol. I had to babysit someone's bird at work for a while (got some cool scars!), and I'm also as involved as possible with trying to convince people to respect the challenges that having pets can raise.

Click to expand...

Belk said:

Lets try a hypothetical.

Lets say there is an odd legislator out there and he writes a law that all sexually active woman have to carry around and care for a bird. The bird must go everywhere she goes and she must feed it whenever she herself eats. That is the only restraint placed upon her. She is still free to go wherever she wishes and do anything she wants. Would you call that involuntary servitude?

Click to expand...

keith99 said:

Actually yes. And pregnancy is far more burdensome.

Click to expand...

Belk said:

Hmmm... Well I admit I currently have no argument against this. However I think there is something I'm missing since it still feels off. I'll cogitate on it some more.

Click to expand...

keith99 said:

In some ways I agree with your position. It is not classic involuntary servitude. My point is once the idea is raised those who want to deny it and prohibit abortion have a problem.

If the fetus is not a human being the grounds to ban abortion crumble.

If a fetus is a human being then the pregnant woman is in a sense in servitude to that fetus.

The fetus can't both be and not be a human being at the same time.

Click to expand...