Rape, Abortion and Involuntary Servitude

[KwanLove]

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.

This hypothetical situation does acknowledge the fetus as a person, which is why it's interesting.

As for your second point: neglectful parents may give their children up for adoption or into foster care. There are legal means for those who do not want to be parents to NOT be under servitude to their offspring. A pregnant woman does not have this option for the entire duration of her pregnancy (under this hypothetical situation in which pregnant women are forced to carry the offspring of their rapists to term). For a woman who is pregnant by rape, this may be especially traumatic.

 

[Sketcher]

This hypothetical situation does acknowledge the fetus as a person, which is why it's interesting.

As for your second point: neglectful parents may give their children up for adoption or into foster care. There are legal means for those who do not want to be parents to NOT be under servitude to their offspring. A pregnant woman does not have this option for the entire duration of her pregnancy (under this hypothetical situation in which pregnant women are forced to carry the offspring of their rapists to term). For a woman who is pregnant by rape, this may be especially traumatic.

Outside of the window of opportunity given by safe haven laws, a neglectful parent must either wait out the adoption process, or commit enough acts of abuse or negligence against the child to get said child under a different roof. Furthermore, the child's rights do not depend upon the parents' feelings or options.

 

[Hank77]

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.

I didn't know that abortion came under the 14th amendment for a long time.

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

The starting point seems to be down syndrome. They can identify the child so that the fetus can be aborted. Only there are some mothers that feel they want the child no matter what. Even they say the downs syndrome babies are "Angels in Disguise". When you sign up for Downs Syndrome you sign up for life. If the Syndrome is severe they do not ever grow up and become independent. Some feel this is beneficial for them to take on this sort of an obligation. With a normal child there is a good chance the could grow up and not only become independent but they could take care of you in your old age. This then becomes a spring board issue as it becomes possible to weed out other issues while the child is still in the womb.

What about people that live a long productive life and they have a living will. They have made the choice that they do not want to be revived and resuscitated. So we are to deny them of food and water so that they die from dehydration. Because they do not want to be a burden and people do not want to be burdened taking care of them.

It use to be people had the choice if they wanted to take care of the baby. They could put them in a institute and allow the tax payer to pay the bill to provide care for the child if they did not want to do that. So these are some of the issues we are dealing with. To say they may or may not have a right to life is one thing. Someone has to provide for them to give them the care they need.

Ezekiel 16:6 talks about a bloody fetus that is found along side of the road. God Himself cares for that Fetus and that Fetus is Israel and becomes a type of the Bride of Christ. God Himself revived and resuscitate Israel or they would not be a people, they would not be a nation today. Jesus Himself revives and resuscitates His Church, His Bride or they would have been lost and perish in sin and sickness.

 

[Archivist]

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.

Studies backing this?

BTW, I posted this same thread in the Christian Philosophy and Ethics thread. We had a post there by a woman who was raped as a teen. She fortunately did not become pregnant but said that if she had she would have had an abortion because she couldn't have dealt with carrying her attacker's child and it would have interrupted her schooling.

 

[Archivist]

This is silly, to say the least.

Many poster seem to be taking it seriously.

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.

I see. Using that reasoning the 2nd Amendment shouldn't apply to modern weapons because the framers would have only known Brown Bess muskets and Pennsylvania rifles.

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.

But pregnancy caused by rape is not a "backbone of society," nor would many rape victims consider their pregnancy to be a "blessing."

Rape is sad and abortion is sad.

Agreed.

Saying that does not necessarily mean I want to make it illegal anytime soon.

But there are people out there who want to make it illegal for victims of rape to have abortions.

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.

And the problem with that is????

 

[grasping the after wind]

I've been polite on this thread, you can too.

Are you suggesting I have been impolite? I would find that suggestion unwarranted.

 

[Archivist]

Are you suggesting I have been impolite? I would find that suggestion unwarranted.

You were the one who said that I was making a faux argument. While I expect people to take issue with what I say, saying that it is a faux or false argument is, in my book, not polite. Point out where I am wrong, but don't say that it is a faux argument. If you think that is polite then I'm sorry if I insulted you.

 

[KwanLove]

I find it very interesting that in this topic and the identical topic in the Christian only forum that people are very quick to condemn victims of rape for wanting abortions until a victim of rape speaks up about their experience.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You were the one who said that I was making a faux argument. While I expect people to take issue with what I say, saying that it is a faux or false argument is, in my book, not polite. Point out where I am wrong, but don't say that it is a faux argument. If you think that is polite then I'm sorry if I insulted you.

I do not see how properly categorizing an argument is impolite. I made no personal remarks about you or your intentions I only remarked upon the argument which as far as I can see does not fit or address the actual situation which it was being applied to. So I accept your apology for calling me impolite when I was not being impolite.

 

[Archivist]

I do not see how properly categorizing an argument is impolite. I made no personal remarks about you or your intentions I only remarked upon the argument which as far as I can see does not fit or address the actual situation which it was being applied to. So I accept your apology for calling me impolite when I was not being impolite.

Except that you did not properly categorize the argument. You said that it was a false argument. It is not.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Except that you did not properly categorize the argument. You said that it was a false argument. It is not.

We disagree on that. Involuntary servitude does not properly describe the situation of a mother that has become pregnant as a consequence of being raped so arguing that it does is incorrect. Additionally, I did not use the word false.

 

[jayem]

And forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term, a pregnancy that was without her consent, 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.

It's an interesting argument. It's another way to look at the doctrine of bodily autonomy. Which is that absent a compelling government interest to the contrary, a person has a right to consent to what happens to his/her body. This is a facet of the unenumerated right to privacy, which the courts have recognized as a logical extension of the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. Then combine that with the doctrine, stated in Roe v. Wade, that a fetus is not a person as the term is used in the 14th Amendment. It becomes impossible to justify that a state has any interest in preventing a woman impregnated by rape from obtaining an abortion.

 

[Archivist]

We disagree on that. Involuntary servitude does not properly describe the situation of a mother that has become pregnant as a consequence of being raped so arguing that it does is incorrect.

Wrong. It may be incorrect is your opinion, but it is not incorrect. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but it is just that, opinion.

Additionally, I did not use the word false.

Sure you did. You said that it was a faux argument. Last time I checked the word faux is French for false. The word has worked its way into our lexicon, but the meaning is the same.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Wrong. It may be incorrect is your opinion, but it is not incorrect. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but it is just that, opinion.

I seem to remember writing that we disagreed on this so why the silly sentence that seems to say that opinions cannot be said to be right or wrong except for your's which you demand is not incorrect? I will stick with my own opinion and you can continue to believe that fetuses are some sort of slave masters forcing women to care for them against their will if that is what you like to believe.

Sure you did. You said that it was a faux argument. Last time I checked the word faux is French for false. The word has worked its way into our lexicon, but the meaning is the same.

I disagree. The English usage of the term is quite different as it tends to include the idea of a poor copy rather than something just completely wrong. The argument is a poor copy of an actual argument that would hold water. First, the fetus does not have control over the mother. The fetus is not forcing the mother to do something against her will it is simply existing at the sufferance of the mother who is in complete control of how the situation will unfold though she was not in control of how the situation came to be. You cannot insist that a fetus is just a insensate clump of tissue and at the same time insist that it is capable of coercing the mother into involuntary servitude to its desires against her will. How does an insensate clump of tissue accomplish this feat ?

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's an interesting argument. It's another way to look at the doctrine of bodily autonomy. Which is that absent a compelling government interest to the contrary, a person has a right to consent to what happens to his/her body. This is a facet of the unenumerated right to privacy, which the courts have recognized as a logical extension of the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. Then combine that with the doctrine, stated in Roe v. Wade, that a fetus is not a person as the term is used in the 14th Amendment. It becomes impossible to justify that a state has any interest in preventing a woman impregnated by rape from obtaining an abortion.

Yet the government does not actually endorse bodily autonomy at all. One is not allowed to ingest whatever one likes or to sell one's own body parts or to refuse to enter into the military or to refrain from wearing certain appliances while driving. So from what i can see there is no such doctrine of bodily autonomy except in the imagination of some people that wish it to be so for their own particular interests.

 

[jayem]

Yet the government does not actually endorse bodily autonomy at all. One is not allowed to ingest whatever one likes or to sell one's own body parts or to refuse to enter into the military or to refrain from wearing certain appliances while driving. So from what i can see there is no such doctrine of bodily autonomy except in the imagination of some people that wish it to be so for their own particular interests.

Autonomy is not absolute, but neither is free speech (there is no right to commit perjury, or to incite violence, or to be immune from damages for libel or slander.) Nor is free exercise of religion absolute. There no right to deny your critically injured child a blood transfusion by claiming your religious beliefs forbid it. The fact that constitutional rights can be limited, doesn't mean they don't exist. Ultimately, it's the job of the federal courts to decide if any such limitation passes muster As far as abortion goes, the standard has been an "undue burden." State laws can restrict abortion unless such laws create an undue burden on a woman's access to abortion services. Sure it's kinda vague and arbitrary, and it comes down to a case-by-case determination. But that's how our legal system works.

 

[Archivist]

I seem to remember writing that we disagreed on this so why the silly sentence that seems to say that opinions cannot be said to be right or wrong except for your's which you demand is not incorrect?

First, are you unable to be polite? I might not agree with you, but I would never call anything you wrote "false" unless I had absolute proof that it was, and I certainly wouldn't say that something you wrote was "silly."

Second, I never said that mine is the only opinion that is correct. In fact, I specifically said that you are entitled to your opinion. What do you wnat me to say--that my opinion is wrong?

I will stick with my own opinion and you can continue to believe that fetuses are some sort of slave masters forcing women to care for them against their will if that is what you like to believe.

Did you even bother reading the OP, or the thread in general. No one is saying that pregnancy, even a pregnancy resulting from rape, is slavery. We are talking about indentured servitude, that is servitude for a specific time period. If you think that we are discussing slavery then you don't comprehend what this thread is about.

I disagree. The English usage of the term is quite different as it tends to include the idea of a poor copy rather than something just completely wrong.{/QUOTE]

I presume this refers to your use of the term faux. OED, the descriptive dictionary of the English language, defines faux as False, fake, ersatz. The Penguin English Dictionary defines it as False; insincere. Webster's New World Dictionary defines it as False; artificial; synthetic. Black's Law Dictionary defines it as False or counterfeit. Brower's Dictionary of foreign Words and Phrases defines it as False; imitation; artificial. Collins English Dictionary defines it as False, counterfeit or imitation. Of the dictionaries I checked only American Heritage did not specifically define it as false--it defined it as Artificial; fake. You can say what you want about American usage of faux; major reference sources do not back you up.

The argument is a poor copy of an actual argument that would hold water.

In your opinion. And again, you are entitled to your opinion.

First, the fetus does not have control over the mother. The fetus is not forcing the mother to do something against her will it is simply existing at the sufferance of the mother who is in complete control of how the situation will unfold though she was not in control of how the situation came to be.

The fetus is taking food from the mother. The mother will experience and possibly morning sickiness and other health issues as a result of the pregnancy. If the rape victim does not have the option of an abortion then she is not in "complete control of how the situation will unfold."

You cannot insist that a fetus is just a insensate clump of tissue and at the same time insist that it is capable of coercing the mother into involuntary servitude to its desires against her will. How does an insensate clump of tissue accomplish this feat ?

Big problem with this statement--I have never, in this or any other thread, insisted "that a fetus is just a insensate clump of tissue." Those are your words, not mine. Please don't make things up and the try to attribute the words to me.

 

[CurtisNeeley]

AR Act 301, limiting the time for artificial abortion of gestation to 12-weeks, does not apply in the case of rape or incest. I see this as an attempt to answer the "involuntary servitude" challenge to AR Act301, while failing to fully respect the human dignity of a heartbeat.

I agree that pregnancy is a nine month period where females are bound by nature to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the 13th Amendment.

Roe v Wade perhaps tried to answer this. There are dozens of females I see in schools who should not get pregnant or face this "involuntary servitude" because these females are children themselves.

When the State of Arkansas becomes protector of the dignity of human heartbeats, artificial abortion of gestation must occur in the first 12-weeks. Arkansas would therefore need to fund artificial abortion of gestation and EPTs in the same bill to address the "involuntary servitude" issue when removing the pregnancy/incest exception to respect human dignity.

 

[Jay Brooks]

Luke 12:7 King James Version
7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Jeremiah 1:5 King James Version
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Revelation 1:8 King James Version
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Rev 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Jesus knows all things and is all powerful. Nothing happens unless He allows it.
And He is always right and never wrong. Jesus, The Alpha and the Omega, makes Him always in existence. At no time when he was in the womb was he not a complete life. If you disagree with this then you are saying that God did not exist while He was in the womb. Dig deep now because there is no argument here. Did you accept The Everlasting Saviour? Or was he non everlasting as just tissue in the womb. If He is the Alpha and Omega, He was the alpha and Omega in the womb as well. If not then there is no Alpha and Omega, which would make Jesus the biggest liar in all time existence. If you believe there are extenuating circumstances justifying abortion in some instances, then you are taking control. I would ask you this simple question. When you are asleep at night, who is in control then. When you sit at the breakfast table, did you check out the chair before you sat down? I submit that you have more faith in the kitchen chair then you do in the Alpha and Omega. There is no justification for abortion under any circumstances. Not aborting a child is servitude to the Lord Jesus.

Proverbs 3:5-6 King James Version
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.


Isaiah 55:8-9 King James Version
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.