Rape, Abortion and Involuntary Servitude

[joshua 1 9]

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?

God says to choose life so that you and your descendants may life. So there clearly is a right and a wrong choice. Yet it is God that gives us that choice. Even we are told: "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". Still we have a choice and we do not have to choose death, we can choose life. We can choose to love and obey God. As they say it is the only way, the only right way to go. So we need to learn how to love and obey or trust God and obey.

19"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days"

 

[grasping the after wind]

The problem with the involuntary servitude argument is that we are not talking about a fetus causing the situation we are talking about a situation in which both parties are victims of a third party. The fetus is not demanding service from the mother it is merely there. One can argue that the mother has the right to refuse to care for the fetus because she was not a willing participant in the creation of the fetus so she is being forced into involuntary servitutde but then we run into the problem of the social safety net by which taxpayers are made to carry the burden of other people's welfare though they did not cause those people to be created either nor cause the problems that have them in need of aid. If we are to be consistent then we would have to accept the argument that government caring for the welfare of some of its citizens at the expense of others is also involuntary servitude. No, there are arguments to be made for and against abortion and welfare but involuntary servitude is not an apt one for either.

 

[Archivist]

God says to choose life so that you and your descendants may life. So there clearly is a right and a wrong choice. Yet it is God that gives us that choice. Even we are told: "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". Still we have a choice and we do not have to choose death, we can choose life. We can choose to love and obey God. As they say it is the only way, the only right way to go. So we need to learn how to love and obey or trust God and obey.

But none of this has anything to do with the question of involuntary servitude.

 

[Archivist]

The problem with the involuntary servitude argument is that we are not talking about a fetus causing the situation we are talking about a situation in which both parties are victims of a third party. The fetus is not demanding service from the mother it is merely there. One can argue that the mother has the right to refuse to care for the fetus because she was not a willing participant in the creation of the fetus so she is being forced into involuntary servitutde

So if it is not involuntary servitude, a woamn who is impregnated as a result of rape has every right to continue smoking and drinking, to avoid eating a healthy diet and to refuse medical attention. nAfter all, the fetus is "merely there."

but then we run into the problem of the social safety net by which taxpayers are made to carry the burden of other people's welfare though they did not cause those people to be created either nor cause the problems that have them in need of aid. If we are to be consistent then we would have to accept the argument that government caring for the welfare of some of its citizens at the expense of others is also involuntary servitude. No, there are arguments to be made for and against abortion and welfare but involuntary servitude is not an apt one for either.

Except that provisions for the poor and needy were a government responsibility--counties had county poor houses--long before the 13th Amendment and were not regarded as involuntary servitude.

 

[grasping the after wind]

So if it is not involuntary servitude, a woamn who is impregnated as a result of rape has every right to continue smoking and drinking, to avoid eating a healthy diet and to refuse medical attention. nAfter all, the fetus is "merely there."

There are pregnant women that are not raped that do these things . There is no law forcing them to act differently. There is no law forcing them to carry out their pregnancy even if they were not raped. Why would they need to invoke a faux involuntary servitude? If you are looking for a philosophical reason why a woman that is impregnated by a rapist might be considered correct in having an abortion I suggest you go with the self defense argument and not some stretch of involuntary servitude.

Except that provisions for the poor and needy were a government responsibility--counties had county poor houses--long before the 13th Amendment and were not regarded as involuntary servitude.

Since women became pregnant by being raped long before the 13th Amendment and were not regarded as being in involuntary servitude to their unborn I do not see any distinction here. We expect people to care about the welfare of others even though they have played no active role in putting that person in jeopardy. It is not involuntary servitude but simple social responsibility. That applies to fetuses as well as poor people. Again the case of pregnancy by rape has as an argument for abortion the mental self defense of the mother. Pretending that a fetus somehow is forcing the mother to do its will is not logical.

 

[Archivist]

There are pregnant women that are not raped that do these things . There is no law forcing them to act differently. There is no law forcing them to carry out their pregnancy even if they were not raped. Why would they need to invoke a faux involuntary servitude? If you are looking for a philosophical reason why a woman that is impregnated by a rapist might be considered correct in having an abortion I suggest you go with the self defense argument and not some stretch of involuntary servitude.

This is a discussion forum. I posted a question for discussion. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I've been polite on this thread, you can too.

Since women became pregnant by being raped long before the 13th Amendment and were not regarded as being in involuntary servitude to their unborn I do not see any distinction here. We expect people to care about the welfare of others even though they have played no active role in putting that person in jeopardy. It is not involuntary servitude but simple social responsibility.That applies to fetuses as well as poor people.

Except that a fetus is living inside a women, taking nourishment from her body. Poor people are not doing that.

Again the case of pregnancy by rape has as an argument for abortion the mental self defense of the mother. Pretending that a fetus somehow is forcing the mother to do its will is not logical.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[kit-katbar1]

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.

The thing about abortion in the case of a rape is that we are correcting one violent, atrocious crime with another. Unfortunately, yes, the woman would be forced to carry the baby to term against her will so, yes, according to your definition, it would be involuntary servitude. She doesn't want to be pregnant and she did nothing to contribute to the conception of the fetus. However I challenge your definition of involuntary servitude. Lets look at an elderly person. The only person there to take care of him is his son. Let's also pretend that they aren't very well off so the older man (we'll call him Mr. Jones) can't be put in a decent assisted living home and has to live with his son. The son is in charge of his medication, his meals, his baths etc... Did the son ask to be burdened with the care of his elderly father? No. Does taking care of his elderly father affect his life in the way that he can no longer go out at night, spend time with his friends, or live life as he had? Yes it does. So why doesn't he just put poor old Mr. Jones in a state funded nursing home? Because he knows that that would be writing the death sentence for his father. Sometimes "involuntary servitude" is nothing more than service to those who can't defend themselves. Would you agree that an unborn baby would fall into the category of someone who can't defend themselves? implying that pregnancy is involuntary servitude is a very selfish way to look at the world. That baby never asked to be conceived but nevertheless he was and therefore does not deserve to be torn from life before it even starts.

 

[KwanLove]

The thing about abortion in the case of a rape is that we are correcting one violent, atrocious crime with another. Unfortunately, yes, the woman would be forced to carry the baby to term against her will so, yes, according to your definition, it would be involuntary servitude. She doesn't want to be pregnant and she did nothing to contribute to the conception of the fetus. However I challenge your definition of involuntary servitude. Lets look at an elderly person. The only person there to take care of him is his son. Let's also pretend that they aren't very well off so the older man (we'll call him Mr. Jones) can't be put in a decent assisted living home and has to live with his son. The son is in charge of his medication, his meals, his baths etc... Did the son ask to be burdened with the care of his elderly father? No. Does taking care of his elderly father affect his life in the way that he can no longer go out at night, spend time with his friends, or live life as he had? Yes it does. So why doesn't he just put poor old Mr. Jones in a state funded nursing home? Because he knows that that would be writing the death sentence for his father. Sometimes "involuntary servitude" is nothing more than service to those who can't defend themselves. Would you agree that an unborn baby would fall into the category of someone who can't defend themselves? implying that pregnancy is involuntary servitude is a very selfish way to look at the world. That baby never asked to be conceived but nevertheless he was and therefore does not deserve to be torn from life before it even starts.

However, the son still has the legal option to put his father into a state-funded nursing home. It may not be the most morally correct thing to do, or the nicest thing to do, but the legal option is still there. Because ultimately people have choices.

Abortion in the case of rape may not be the self-sacrificing choice, but women still deserve to have the choice.

Furthermore, pregnancy (ESPECIALLY in cases of rape) is about far more than just not being to go out and do whatever you want with yourself. It is about the mental toll of an undesired fetus literally feeding off of your body. I don't mean for my harsh description to characterize all pregnancies--but consider how a pregnant victim of rape would feel every moment of her pregnancy with the evidence of her trauma thriving inside of her.

 

[kit-katbar1]

However, the son still has the legal option to put his father into a state-funded nursing home. It may not be the most morally correct thing to do, or the nicest thing to do, but the legal option is still there. Because ultimately people have choices.

Abortion in the case of rape may not be the self-sacrificing choice, but women still deserve to have the choice.

Furthermore, pregnancy (ESPECIALLY in cases of rape) is about far more than just not being to go out and do whatever you want with yourself. It is about the mental toll of an undesired fetus literally feeding off of your body. I don't mean for my harsh description to characterize all pregnancies--but consider how a pregnant victim of rape would feel every moment of her pregnancy with the evidence of her trauma thriving inside of her.

It has actually been proven that rape victims who become pregnant and carry the baby to term recover from the emotional trauma of the rape much faster than victims who don't.

 

[stray bullet]

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.

This is silly, to say the least.

The reason that amendment exists is because the government determined that certain "persons" weren't "persons" and could be treated as property and killed by its owner. Slavery, unlike pregnancy, is not a backbone of society, much less ever existed in the evil form that it took on in the west that led to it being abolished worldwide.

Being pregnant is a blessing and to compare it to slavery is quite tragic.

Rape is sad and abortion is sad. Saying that does not necessarily mean I want to make it illegal anytime soon. It's just two really bad things you mixed in with a third one. All three of these are terrible things that should not happen but people allowed it because they believe it had some good to it.

 

[KwanLove]

It has actually been proven that rape victims who become pregnant and carry the baby to term recover from the emotional trauma of the rape much faster than victims who don't.

Do you have any links to these studies? Even if this is the case, I'm certain that there are women whose suffering has been somewhat alleviated by terminating the pregnancy. This is an excellent unbiased website that presents the realities of rape and pregnancy: http://www.pandys.org/articles/rapeandpregnancy.html

It acknowledges that every woman and victim is different, and the right choice for her may vary.

 

[KitKatMatt]

The thing about abortion in the case of a rape is that we are correcting one violent, atrocious crime with another.

You cannot "correct" rape. It's not an action that can be undone by any process.

 

[kit-katbar1]

You cannot "correct" rape. It's not an action that can be undone by any process.

No it can't be undone. As i said, it's a violent, atrocious crime; however, when you abort the child that is a result of that rape, you pile murder on top of it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The thing about abortion in the case of a rape is that we are correcting one violent, atrocious crime with another. Unfortunately, yes, the woman would be forced to carry the baby to term against her will so, yes, according to your definition, it would be involuntary servitude. She doesn't want to be pregnant and she did nothing to contribute to the conception of the fetus. However I challenge your definition of involuntary servitude. Lets look at an elderly person. The only person there to take care of him is his son. Let's also pretend that they aren't very well off so the older man (we'll call him Mr. Jones) can't be put in a decent assisted living home and has to live with his son. The son is in charge of his medication, his meals, his baths etc... Did the son ask to be burdened with the care of his elderly father? No. Does taking care of his elderly father affect his life in the way that he can no longer go out at night, spend time with his friends, or live life as he had? Yes it does. So why doesn't he just put poor old Mr. Jones in a state funded nursing home? Because he knows that that would be writing the death sentence for his father. Sometimes "involuntary servitude" is nothing more than service to those who can't defend themselves. Would you agree that an unborn baby would fall into the category of someone who can't defend themselves? implying that pregnancy is involuntary servitude is a very selfish way to look at the world. That baby never asked to be conceived but nevertheless he was and therefore does not deserve to be torn from life before it even starts.

I took care of both of my parents when they got older. It was no problem at all. I did not live far away and even if they needed something I was ready to help them at a moments notice. It is the very least we can do for them after all they did for us. Use to be the reason for having a big family was so your children would take care of you when you got older hopefully as well as you took care of them when they were young. Then the government stepped in and confused the issue.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No it can't be undone. As i said, it's a violent, atrocious crime; however, when you abort the child that is a result of that rape, you pile murder on top of it.

I know a girl that was raped and had the baby. Even she took the baby to visit the father in prison. One day she told us the story though. They had been dating and they got in an argument. Really she needed to leave but she was sort of hard headed and decided to stay and argue with him and he ended up raping her. Don't know if this is related to the topic or not, but rape can mean a lot of different things.

 

[Hank77]

It has actually been proven that rape victims who become pregnant and carry the baby to term recover from the emotional trauma of the rape much faster than victims who don't.

If a rape victim in your state wishes to raise her child do the laws of your state give her full custody of her child or can her rapist demand parental rights, such as visitation rights, with the child? This has happened in some states, they are not in prison forever.
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-3/Prewitt.PDF

Approx. 25,000 women become pregnant by rape each year.

 

[Hank77]

I took care of both of my parents when they got older. It was no problem at all. I did not live far away and even if they needed something I was ready to help them at a moments notice. It is the very least we can do for them after all they did for us. Use to be the reason for having a big family was so your children would take care of you when you got older hopefully as well as you took care of them when they were young. Then the government stepped in and confused the issue.

The government stepped in because elderly people had no income and not all of them had/have good sons like you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The government stepped in because elderly people had no income and not all of them had/have good sons like you.

That is nice that the government pays my insurance. But they took the money we paid into the system and they spent it and now they expect the current tax payers to pay the bill. The question is who is going to pay the bill for them when they need it. Their money should be invested so they will have it to pay their medical bills when they get older. Also people live longer now so that has an effect on who is going to pay for it.

 

[Sketcher]

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?

No. Pregnancy is not involuntary servitude. If one were to claim that it is involuntary servitude, one must 1) acknowledge the fetus as a person, and 2) open up a defense for neglectful parents to claim that they are in involuntary servitude to their children.

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?

The spirit of the 14th Amendment was to ensure equality for blacks, not to permit abortion. To use an Amendment in such a way as to deprive innocent, helpless human beings of the right to life is both wrong and disgusting.

 

[KitKatMatt]

No it can't be undone. As i said, it's a violent, atrocious crime; however, when you abort the child that is a result of that rape, you pile murder on top of it.

If I didn't give that life consent to grow inside of me, why should I be made to keep it?

Some people may choose to keep a baby conceived via rape for their own reasons, and that's fine. I would never be able to do such a thing, though. For many reasons, including the fact that I would not want to bring progeny of a rapist into this world and have the child constantly remind me, by simply existing, of a horrible violation of my body.