Pro-Choice
Related: About this forumanti-choice is pro-forced slavery (with thanks to crispyq for this important 13th amendment piece)
(spread this far and wide. we MUST frame the anti-choicers for exactly what they are--gestational slavers)
Is there a test that can determine paternity in the womb?
I don't know why the pro-choice movement doesn't have an ad campaign presenting the issue in this light:
=====
2010
Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth
Amendment and Abortion
Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University School of Law, akoppelman@law.northwestern.edu
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers
snip...
My claim is that the amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When
women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary
servitude" in violation of the amendment. Abortion prohibitions violate the
Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by
compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal
service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the
essence of involuntary servitude."6
Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of
equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group
which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and
not themselves.
This argument makes available two responses to the standard defense of such
prohibitions, the claim that the fetus is a person. The first is that even if this is so, its
right to the continued aid of the woman does not follow. As Judith Jarvis Thomson
observes, "having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the
use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body -- even if one needs it for life itself."7
Giving fetuses a legal right to the continued use of their mothers'
bodies would be precisely what the Thirteenth Amendment forbids. The second response
is that since abortion prohibitions infringe on the fundamental right to be free of
involuntary servitude, the burden is on the state to show that the violation of this right is
justified. Since the thesis that the fetus is, or should at least be considered, a person
seems impossible to prove (or to refute), this is a burden that the state cannot carry. If we
are not certain that the fetus is a person, then the mere possibility that it might be is not
enough to justify violating women's Thirteenth Amendment rights by forcing them to be
mothers.
=====
rock
(13,218 posts)+1
J_William_Ryan
(2,264 posts)Forcing a woman to give birth against her will also violates the 3rd, 4th, and 14th Amendments.
WinstonSmith00
(228 posts)Than the expected outcome of intercourse or getting pregnant was not involuntary.
What about enforcing child support laws isnt that involuntary servitude if the male wanted the female to terminate the pregnancy.
No there needs to be more personal responsibility to ones own actions and choices and having a baby cannot be played off as a victim or compared to slavery.
I am prochoice i believe what happens between an individual and their doctor should stay there. But dont drae a false comparison to slavery or dead beat dads who dont pay child support could claim the same thing.
niyad
(120,663 posts)WinstonSmith00
(228 posts)Which there still are in this world..even in this country.. To compare having a baby to slavery.
Pro-choice all the way but this is not a good argument.
niyad
(120,663 posts)WinstonSmith00
(228 posts)In which case i would agree.
But if one conceives of their own free will than the argument falls apart. So its not a good argument. We need to have personal responsibility especially when birth control is so available on so many forms. But nothing is 100% besides absentnence so one has to accept the responsibility for the out come of their own actions and they cannot play the im a slave card. Unless ofcourse if it was forced on them. But accidental conception is not forced conception.
The better argument is that it is a save medical proceedure preformed between a willing patient and a throughly trained doctor. And the freedom of the individual allows for safe proceedures they see fit with their doctor. And the privacy between an individual and their doctor is unapproachable.
Basically people should just mine their own business.
But comparing birth to slavery isnt going to change anybodies mind its more preaching to the choir.
niyad
(120,663 posts)WinstonSmith00
(228 posts)Think i made my point. Thanks for the post though.
niyad
(120,663 posts)shenmue
(38,538 posts)niyad
(120,663 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,343 posts)it implies forced birth.
Since their are drugs and procedures to resolve conception...if you don't allow the drugs and procedures you are forcing the birth.
CrispyQ
(38,585 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 14, 2017, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)
You expect the ladies to practice personal responsibility at the same time repub lawmakers are defunding Planned Parenthood & going after our reproductive rights.
Regarding your final sentence - you are ONE person. Comparing forced birth to slavery might change minds. I personally believe it's a valid argument.
on edit: Like this kind of shit:
Trump administration suddenly pulls plug on teen pregnancy programs
By Jane Kay / July 14, 2017
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029325630
The Trump administration has quietly axed $213.6 million in teen pregnancy prevention programs and research at more than 80 institutions around the country, including Childrens Hospital of Los Angeles and Johns Hopkins University.
The decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will end five-year grants awarded by the Obama administration that were designed to find scientifically valid ways to help teenagers make healthy decisions that avoid unwanted pregnancies.
===
Fresh_Start
(11,343 posts)and they didn't ask the female to terminate the pregnancy.
When you solve the majority of the problem...then we can talk about the minority of the problem.
I'd say lets transfer the fetus to the male if he wants the fetus to continue to grow. Implant it in him and let him deal with it. After of course he pays for both surgeries and her recovery time.
CrispyQ
(38,585 posts)Very, very few, would be my guess.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The point is that, long before reproductive rights were on most policymakers' radar, the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment was interpreted in light of the situation that had produced it: chattel slavery of human beings in the antebellum United States (mostly but not exclusively in the states of the Confederacy).
As a practical matter, I don't think that pushing a radical reinterpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment is likely to be an effective way to protect or expand reproductive rights.