The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion Rights

[Kathryn]

Hey. This stupid song has been stuck in my head for TWO WHOLE DAYS:

I hate it so much I had to share it.

 

[Pogo]

Hey. This stupid song has been stuck in my head for TWO WHOLE DAYS:

I hate it so much I had to share it.

That deserves this.

 

[Kathryn]

That deserves this.

Make it stop! Though I still think my song is even worse than Faith Hill's song. It's like the worsr song ever. And it's stuck in my head, "Wake me up before you go go...Don't keep me hanging on like a yo yo." Yo yo's hang on to things?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I don't. You can tell me what I think all day it does not make it true.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You oppose bodily autonomy for pregnant people. What your motivations are for your position is for you to decide, but the end result is what it is.

I hold the position that every person has a right to life. You disagree with this position.

No, I hold the position that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life.

... and I'd bet that you hold this position too in every case except abortion.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then what is your criterion? I don't care what your personal feelings are about pregnancies, family planning, or the sexual behavior of others. That is your business. But government in the US is only empowered to pass laws that have a constitutional basis. The Preamble makes clear that the purpose of the Constitution is to benefit society--"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." If a law provides no benefit to society, how is the government able to restrict the freedom of a woman and her doctors dealing with an unwanted pregnancy? It has a bearing on her physical and mental health, not yours.

Because almost all of the time the woman and man voluntarily engaged in an act that created the human life. They had that choice. The human life has value and should be protected. The parents have a responsibility due to their actions. The human life created had no say and cannot defend its right to life.

I don't know what "sacred" means to you. Normally, we associate sacredness with a religious conviction. You believe, as well as I do, that there is no beforelife or afterlife, just life in between birth and death. By your logic, all fertilized eggs are entitled to go through development in a womb and be born, despite the wishes of the mature adult citizen hosting them, if they happen to get attached to the wall of a uterus. They don't even have to have developed brains. How does this serve any purpose or benefit to society? Do you think that laws can just be arbitrary restrictions that some body of legislators decides to impose on a whim?

I have explained my position.

I don't think that you are a dirtbag, and this has nothing to do with a "side". I said that it was reasonable to assume that you derived some satisfaction from the status quo--requiring women in some states to either give birth or seek an abortion out of state.

I don't get satisfaction in women forced to give birth. Do you get satisfaction of babies being killed?

I dismiss your argument, because you fail to give any reasonable justification for your belief that pregnant women be required to carry a pregnancy to term, despite their desire not to. Life being "sacred" to you alone seems to be the only justification you can come up with for applying these imposed pregnancies on women. As you point out, life is short, so why make pregnant women suffer because of your personal feeling about how they should deal with their pregnancies? They face a short life as much as you do--perhaps even shorter because of the ability of anti-abortionists to expose them to risky conditions of pregnancy.

And the human life that is killed has no life at all.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, I hold the position that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life.

This is where we disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because almost all of the time the woman and man voluntarily engaged in an act that created the human life. They had that choice. The human life has value and should be protected. The parents have a responsibility due to their actions. The human life created had no say and cannot defend its right to life.

After birth, the child is still also the consequence of the parents' decision. Despite this fact, this never happens:

"I don't care what the dad says - the kid needs new bone marrow and he's the match. If he didn't want to be in this situation, he shouldn't have had sex. Now help me grab him so we can strap him down."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is where we disagree.

If true, that would be pretty monstrous.

The fact that your bodily autonomy supersedes everyone else's right to life is why it's illegal for someone to just take your kidney, bone marrow, blood, etc. against your will.

In the ads, they say that one pint of blood can save four lives... but they still ask your permission.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

After birth, the child is still also the consequence of the parents' decision. Despite this fact, this never happens:

"I don't care what the dad says - the kid needs new bone marrow and he's the match. If he didn't want to be in this situation, he shouldn't have had sex. Now help me grab him so we can strap him down."

I agree the parents have a responsibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree the parents have a responsibility.

A legal responsibility?

 

[Copernicus]

Because almost all of the time the woman and man voluntarily engaged in an act that created the human life. They had that choice. The human life has value and should be protected. The parents have a responsibility due to their actions. The human life created had no say and cannot defend its right to life.

There are many different circumstances that can lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but your position appears to be that all pregnancies should be brought to term regardless of what led up to them. Am I wrong about that? I think it a bit bizarre to worry about the choice an embryo might some day be in a position to make but be unconcerned about a choice that a fully grown adult woman has forced on her by a government. In any case, the comment you are responding to was about the constitutional basis for anti-abortion laws. You can't think of any social benefit that such laws have, nor can you justify a constitutional basis for such a law. I think that that much can be inferred from how you have responded to my request that you come up with such information.

I have explained my position.

You have said all that you are willing to say. That is your prerogative. I don't consider it much of an explanation, but you've given hints about it in terms of the way you judge the behavior of pregnant women. If you define "human life" as beginning at conception, then it ought not to concern you whether the woman had a choice in becoming pregnant. I know that it does not concern many of those who support anti-abortion laws, since some laws don't even allow for rape or incest to justify a termination of a pregnancy.

I don't get satisfaction in women forced to give birth. Do you get satisfaction of babies being killed?

Of course not, and abortion is not about killing babies. You may not feel that you get satisfaction out of women being forced to give birth, but you clearly do get satisfaction out of your belief that you are defending "human life" that has not actually become a baby. That entails forcing some women to give birth when they do not want to do that.

And the human life that is killed has no life at all.

Then no human life is any life at all, because we are all killed by something in the end.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

A legal responsibility?

For what? Not for all the child's health problems. The parents created the child, they did not create the health issues.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There are many different circumstances that can lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but your position appears to be that all pregnancies should be brought to term regardless of what led up to them.

I never said that.

Am I wrong about that? I think it a bit bizarre to worry about the choice an embryo might some day be in a position to make but be unconcerned about a choice that a fully grown adult woman has forced on her by a government. In any case, the comment you are responding to was about the constitutional basis for anti-abortion laws. You can't think of any social benefit that such laws have, nor can you justify a constitutional basis for such a law. I think that that much can be inferred from how you have responded to my request that you come up with such information.

There is no constitutional basis. That is why it is rightly left with each state to decide as the constitution states.

You have said all that you are willing to say. That is your prerogative. I don't consider it much of an explanation, but you've given hints about it in terms of the way you judge the behavior of pregnant women. If you define "human life" as beginning at conception, then it ought not to concern you whether the woman had a choice in becoming pregnant. I know that it does not concern many of those who support anti-abortion laws, since some laws don't even allow for rape or incest to justify a termination of a pregnancy.

I don't base my abortion stance on conception. I base it in on human life growing in the womb.

Of course not, and abortion is not about killing babies. You may not feel that you get satisfaction out of women being forced to give birth, but you clearly do get satisfaction out of your belief that you are defending "human life" that has not actually become a baby. That entails forcing some women to give birth when they do not want to do that.

No woman in the US is forced to have a baby. All have the right to get an abortion. Why do you lie about that?

Then no human life is any life at all, because we are all killed by something in the end.

Ok, then why are you against murder? (I assume you are)

 

[anotherneil]

Slavery basically has to do with being forced to do work, mainly as in manual labor. I'm pretty sure that a pregnant woman "going into labor" is the same context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For what?

To give up the basic right of bodily autonomy.

Just trying to figure out if pregnant people are the only ones you deem unworthy of basic human rights or if you're against bodily autonomy generally.

Not for all the child's health problems. The parents created the child, they did not create the health issues.

They created a child with health issues, or at least with the potential for health issues.

... but why are you focusing on their personal responsibility? I thought the right to life was your overriding concern. Is it "every child has the right to life... unless the thing that will end your life is something that isn't your parents' fault"?

 

[anotherneil]

Slavery basically has to do with being forced to do work, mainly as in manual labor. I'm pretty sure that a pregnant woman "going into labor" is the same context.

I just re-read this post and noticed that I didn't write it correctly; I meant to say that "going into labor" is not the same context as forced work as in manual labor.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is where we disagree.

This was in response to, "No, I hold the position that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life."


Cool. So when the time comes that I need a kidney transplant, you will have no problem with me forcing you to give me yours. And even if you don't want to give it to me, tough luck for you, because you hold the position that bodily autonomy does not supersede the right to life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never said that.

There is no constitutional basis. That is why it is rightly left with each state to decide as the constitution states.

I don't base my abortion stance on conception. I base it in on human life growing in the womb.

No woman in the US is forced to have a baby. All have the right to get an abortion. Why do you lie about that?

Ok, then why are you against murder? (I assume you are)

Since when do a person's most basic rights vary depending on what state they're in?
That is ludicrous.

 

[Pogo]

Since when do a person's most basic rights vary depending on what state they're in?
That is ludicrous.

Prior to July, 9 1868 when the 14th amendment was passed, though it took until 1973 for the wheels of justice to formally state that abortion was one of the things that didn't vary by state.

 

[crossfire]

I just re-read this post and noticed that I didn't write it correctly; I meant to say that "going into labor" is not the same context as forced work as in manual labor.

Pregnant people are physically restrained to the task at hand: hosting an embryo or fetus within their body. The pregnant person is physically forced to provide for the fetus literally from their own body functions. If the states extend personhood to the fetus and forbids breaking the physical retraints via termination of pregnancy, then it qualifies as both involuntary servitude and compulsory service--forced labor for the benefit of another person. Since there is no contract requiring completion of the pregnancy, then it must be considered to be an -at-will arrangement. When you remove the at-will aspect, it becomes compulsory service, aka, slavery. (as defined as one of the badges and incidents of slavery by the courts.)