| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"vernonner3voltazim" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2005 10:10:37 PM |
| Object: |
More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
Here is a piece of reasoning that indicates the Supreme Court made the
correct decision in denying person status to unborn humans: Amendment
13 forbids involuntary servitude outside of due process of law. If a
woman does not want to be pregnant, and the unborn is not a person,
then there is no conflict because an abortion merely kills an animal
(which it certainly purely IS in scientific fact). But if the unborn is
declared to be a person, then the unwilling pregnant woman is now in
involuntary servitude to that unborn human, OUTSIDE OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW. She has committed no crime, much less been convicted of one, such
that involuntary servitude to the unborn can be required of her.
Better, therefore, that granting personhood to the unborn be avoided in
the first place. SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO GRANT
PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS, EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
.
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
29 Nov 2005 10:30:01 PM |
|
|
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:1133323837.792499.204620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here is a piece of reasoning that indicates the Supreme Court made the
correct decision in denying person status to unborn humans: Amendment
13 forbids involuntary servitude outside of due process of law. If a
woman does not want to be pregnant, and the unborn is not a person,
then there is no conflict because an abortion merely kills an animal
(which it certainly purely IS in scientific fact). But if the unborn is
declared to be a person, then the unwilling pregnant woman is now in
involuntary servitude to that unborn human, OUTSIDE OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW. She has committed no crime, much less been convicted of one, such
that involuntary servitude to the unborn can be required of her.
Better, therefore, that granting personhood to the unborn be avoided in
the first place. SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO GRANT
PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS, EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
For such servitude to be involuntary would imply a rape case.
Consensual sex acts are considered voluntary acts. Any resulting pregnancy
would not be considered a consequence of an involuntary act.
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would aborting them not
be in violation of the 13th Amendment or of their due process rights?
How is subjugating the unborn person to involuntary servitude to Pro-Choice
not in violation of the 13th Amendment?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
29 Nov 2005 10:56:32 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:1133323837.792499.204620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here is a piece of reasoning that indicates the Supreme Court made the
correct decision in denying person status to unborn humans: Amendment
13 forbids involuntary servitude outside of due process of law. If a
woman does not want to be pregnant, and the unborn is not a person,
then there is no conflict because an abortion merely kills an animal
(which it certainly purely IS in scientific fact). But if the unborn is
declared to be a person, then the unwilling pregnant woman is now in
involuntary servitude to that unborn human, OUTSIDE OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW. She has committed no crime, much less been convicted of one, such
that involuntary servitude to the unborn can be required of her.
Better, therefore, that granting personhood to the unborn be avoided in
the first place. SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO GRANT
PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS, EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
For such servitude to be involuntary would imply a rape case.
Consensual sex acts are considered voluntary acts. Any resulting pregnancy
would not be considered a consequence of an involuntary act.
Not by you, but fortunately, you'll never be a lawyer.
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would aborting them not
be in violation of the 13th Amendment or of their due process rights?
Since they're not considered persons, except in a couple of carefully
delineated situations (which don't apply in this instance), you're just
wasting the audience's time, as usual.
How is subjugating the unborn person to involuntary servitude to Pro-Choice
not in violation of the 13th Amendment?
Since the unborn person doesn't exist as far as the law is concerned, your
whining is irrelevant, as usual.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vernonner3voltazim" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 08:04:55 AM |
|
|
For such servitude to be involuntary would imply a rape
case. Consensual sex acts are considered voluntary acts.
Any resulting pregnancy would not be considered a
consequence of an involuntary act.
There are those who tie responsibility to indulging in sex.
That connection is faulty, however, due to the biological
fact that the process of conception is an INVOLUNTARY
event. Think about all those couples who want to have
offspring, and select sexual behavior intended to maximize
the probability of conception, but they still fail (about 1/6
of all couples, IIRR). IF CONCEPTION WAS VOLUNTARY,
THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH COUPLES. Well, since concepton
is involuntary, it can happen when it is undesired. That is,
the choice to indulge in sex is NOT the same as a choice
to conceive. (I heard about some statistics indicating that
58% of all abortions are sought because birth control failed.)
Should we pity the Virgin Mary, who likely experienced all
the inconveniences and responsibilities of pregnancy, but,
if story is true, experienced none of the fun that could have
preceded it? And what of the biological hypocrisy granted
to males, who can have their fun without the inconveniences,
simply by running away? It is manifestly unfair to insist that
a woman remain pregnant JUST because an INVOLUNTARY
conception occurred.
To put it another way, a pregnancy is perfectly natural
mindless biology in action. DO HUMANS CLAIM
SUBSERVIENCE TO NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY, or do
they claim superiority over natural mindless biology? If
subservient, then why are medical procedures from
immunizations to heart-bypass surgery tolerated? If superior,
then why should ANY woman be required OR EVEN EXPECTED
to carry a pregnancy to term? It is pure hypocrisy to think
one should be able to take a pill or have an operation, to
deal with some unwanted natural-mindless-biological
aspect of the body, like cancer -- while also thinking that
an unwanted/involuntary pregnancy is somehow different
than natural-mindless-biological, and requires subservience.
The 13th Amendment grants women FREEDOM from
servitude to the natural mindless biology of involuntary
conceptions!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vernonner3voltazim" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 07:22:19 AM |
|
|
SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION
TO GRANT PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS,
EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would
aborting them not be in violation of the 13th Amendment
or of their due process rights?
You are trying (but failing) to muddle the point, which is
that the PROCESS of declaring the unborn to be a person
ALSO violates the 13-Amendment rights of any pregnant
woman who does not want to be pregnant, by creating
an involuntary-servitude situation. Now, IF the unborn had
been declared to be persons BEFORE any woman ever
decided she didn't want to be pregnant, then there would
be an issue involving 14th-Amendment rights of the unborn,
VERSUS the 13th-Amendment rights of the first woman
to decide she didn't want to be pregnant. However, since
there always have been, and likely always will be, some
percentage of pregnant women who don't want to be
pregnant, it is impossible to start with that scenario. In
the Real World we have the situation of unborn humans
that have no rights, and any attempt to give them rights
(which they don't have the brainpower to understand or
appreciate or take advantage of, anyway) can only be
done by trampling on the rights of others. THAT'S why
the Roe vs Wade decision is correct, and should remain
in force.
Now, how can we ensure that information like this gets
into the hands of all Supreme Court members who might
be thinking about overturning Roe vs Wade?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 09:39:17 AM |
|
|
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:1133356939.621152.143770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION
TO GRANT PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS,
EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would
aborting them not be in violation of the 13th Amendment
or of their due process rights?
You are trying (but failing) to muddle the point,
Not so. That is what you and other Pro-Choicers do.
which is that the PROCESS of declaring the unborn to be a person
ALSO violates the 13-Amendment rights of any pregnant
woman who does not want to be pregnant, by creating
an involuntary-servitude situation.
Voluntary sex acts, consensual sex acts, do not produce involuntary
servitude.
Rape can create an involuntary servitude situation.
Now, IF the unborn had been declared to be persons BEFORE any woman ever
decided she didn't want to be pregnant, then there would
be an issue involving 14th-Amendment rights of the unborn,
VERSUS the 13th-Amendment rights of the first woman
to decide she didn't want to be pregnant.
The unborn is exempt from involuntary servitude to a pregnant woman.
However, since there always have been, and likely always will be, some
percentage of pregnant women who don't want to be
pregnant, it is impossible to start with that scenario. In
the Real World we have the situation of unborn humans
that have no rights,
Why did you forget the Constitution, again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 12:32:01 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:1133356939.621152.143770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION
TO GRANT PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS,
EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would
aborting them not be in violation of the 13th Amendment
or of their due process rights?
You are trying (but failing) to muddle the point,
Not so. That is what you and other Pro-Choicers do.
Projection noted.
which is that the PROCESS of declaring the unborn to be a person
ALSO violates the 13-Amendment rights of any pregnant
woman who does not want to be pregnant, by creating
an involuntary-servitude situation.
Voluntary sex acts, consensual sex acts, do not produce involuntary
servitude.
Damn straight. The woman can choose to not consent to pregnancy. (Keep
showing the world how you can't even figure out what you're trying to argue.)
Rape can create an involuntary servitude situation.
....which is over, and the woman's under no legal or moral obligation to stay
in the servitude you and your dim-witted comrades demand.
Now, IF the unborn had been declared to be persons BEFORE any woman ever
decided she didn't want to be pregnant, then there would
be an issue involving 14th-Amendment rights of the unborn,
VERSUS the 13th-Amendment rights of the first woman
to decide she didn't want to be pregnant.
The unborn is exempt from involuntary servitude to a pregnant woman.
Really? Point out the actual law in this country that states that.
However, since there always have been, and likely always will be, some
percentage of pregnant women who don't want to be
pregnant, it is impossible to start with that scenario. In
the Real World we have the situation of unborn humans
that have no rights,
Why did you forget the Constitution, again?
Why should you care? You've never been able to make sense of it in the first
place.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 02:37:48 PM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Why did you forget the Constitution, again?
Why should you care? You've never been able to make sense of it in the first
place.
I guess he wouldn't appreciate a visit from Denis Leary--because that's
who's going to spend some time at the CMT, on Friday (and I get to
attend, for free). ;-))
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 03:25:17 PM |
|
|
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Why did you forget the Constitution, again?
Why should you care? You've never been able to make sense of it in the
first place.
I guess he wouldn't appreciate a visit from Denis Leary--because that's
who's going to spend some time at the CMT, on Friday (and I get to
attend, for free). ;-))
Too bad Johnny can't be on hand - he'd need a new set of ears after Denis got
through with him...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 3, Houston 0 (November 27)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 30 vs. Cleveland, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "vernonner3voltazim" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 11:26:29 AM |
|
|
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would
aborting them not be in violation of the 13th Amendment
or of their due process rights?
You are trying (but failing) to muddle the point,
Not so. That is what you and other Pro-Choicers do.
YOU are, and the proof is right there in your own text above.
"how would aborting them not be in violation of the 13th
Amendment", YOU wrote, which is COMPLETEY
IRRELEVANT, since the unborn human is not being
subjected to involuntary servitude. MUDDLER.
====================
... the PROCESS of declaring the unborn to be a person
ALSO violates the 13-Amendment rights of any pregnant
woman who does not want to be pregnant, by creating
an involuntary-servitude situation.
Voluntary sex acts, consensual sex acts, do not produce
involuntary servitude. Rape can create an involuntary
servitude situation.
Here you are either STILL trying to muddle things, OR you
are failing to understand simple logic. HOW the woman
got pregnant is not relevant to my text above. That text
merely makes two assumptions: that the woman does not
want to be pregnant, and that the unborn human is not
considered a person. THEN is brought up the idea of
DECLARING the unborn human to be a person. It is IN
THE DECLARING that the woman who doesn't want to
be pregnant would suddenly find herself in involuntary
servitude to a person. PRIOR to any such declaration,
she is merely hosting an unwanted animal that she is as
free to rid herself of as any other parasite. AFTER such
a declaration, ridding the parasitic unborn person is not
so easy, since it would be granted 14th-Amendment rights
--and THAT SAME REMOVAL OF FREEDOM, to remove an
unwanted parasite, COUNTS AS INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 10:40:46 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:1133356939.621152.143770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION
TO GRANT PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS,
EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would
aborting them not be in violation of the 13th Amendment
or of their due process rights?
You are trying (but failing) to muddle the point,
Not so. That is what you and other Pro-Choicers do.
And yet, you are well known for trying to muddle the point with
irrelevancy and shifting the goal posts.
which is that the PROCESS of declaring the unborn to be a person
ALSO violates the 13-Amendment rights of any pregnant
woman who does not want to be pregnant, by creating
an involuntary-servitude situation.
Voluntary sex acts, consensual sex acts, do not produce involuntary
servitude.
However, forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancy does produce
involuntary servitude, since they are being forced to continue unwanted
pregnancies.
Rape can create an involuntary servitude situation.
During the rape.
Now, IF the unborn had been declared to be persons BEFORE any woman ever
decided she didn't want to be pregnant, then there would
be an issue involving 14th-Amendment rights of the unborn,
VERSUS the 13th-Amendment rights of the first woman
to decide she didn't want to be pregnant.
The unborn is exempt from involuntary servitude to a pregnant woman.
However, you are trying to make the woman serve in involuntary
servitude to the state and to the embryo/fetus by forcing her to
continue an unwanted pregnancy.
However, since there always have been, and likely always will be, some
percentage of pregnant women who don't want to be
pregnant, it is impossible to start with that scenario. In
the Real World we have the situation of unborn humans
that have no rights,
Why did you forget the Constitution, again?
No. But you seem to have. You are the one that seem to want to force
the woman to serve in involuntary servitude by forcing her to continue
an unwanted pregnancy without her committing a crime or being tried for
any crime.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
29 Nov 2005 11:50:29 PM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:1133323837.792499.204620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here is a piece of reasoning that indicates the Supreme Court made the
correct decision in denying person status to unborn humans: Amendment
13 forbids involuntary servitude outside of due process of law. If a
woman does not want to be pregnant, and the unborn is not a person,
then there is no conflict because an abortion merely kills an animal
(which it certainly purely IS in scientific fact). But if the unborn is
declared to be a person, then the unwilling pregnant woman is now in
involuntary servitude to that unborn human, OUTSIDE OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW. She has committed no crime, much less been convicted of one, such
that involuntary servitude to the unborn can be required of her.
Better, therefore, that granting personhood to the unborn be avoided in
the first place. SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO GRANT
PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS, EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
For such servitude to be involuntary would imply a rape case.
Sex is not pregnancy, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 12:13:36 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:1133323837.792499.204620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here is a piece of reasoning that indicates the Supreme Court made the
correct decision in denying person status to unborn humans: Amendment
13 forbids involuntary servitude outside of due process of law. If a
woman does not want to be pregnant, and the unborn is not a person,
then there is no conflict because an abortion merely kills an animal
(which it certainly purely IS in scientific fact). But if the unborn is
declared to be a person, then the unwilling pregnant woman is now in
involuntary servitude to that unborn human, OUTSIDE OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW. She has committed no crime, much less been convicted of one, such
that involuntary servitude to the unborn can be required of her.
Better, therefore, that granting personhood to the unborn be avoided in
the first place. SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO GRANT
PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS, EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
For such servitude to be involuntary would imply a rape case.
Or forced to remain pregnant against her will, and thus FORCED to serve
the needs of the embryo/fetus against her will.
Consensual sex acts are considered voluntary acts. Any resulting pregnancy
would not be considered a consequence of an involuntary act.
However, that does not matter. Forcing her to remain pregnant against
her will is what makes it involuntary servitude.
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would aborting them not
be in violation of the 13th Amendment or of their due process rights?
Simple. The embryo/fetus is using the woman's body without her
permission, and the state is forcing her to serve the embryo/fetus
without her consent. Therefore, it is involuntary servitude. And,
since the embryo/fetus is essentially using and abusing the woman's
body without her continuing consent, it is effectively assaulting her,
and she is allowed under the law to defend herself by any means
necessary against an assailant.
How is subjugating the unborn person to involuntary servitude to Pro-Choice
not in violation of the 13th Amendment?
The embryo/fetus is not being forced to serve anyone. The WOMAN is the
one being forced to serve the state and the embryo/fetus against her
will and without her ongoing consent.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 01:19:20 AM |
|
|
And,since the embryo/fetus is essentially using and abusing the woman's
body without her continuing consent, it is effectively assaulting her,
and she is allowed under the law to defend herself by any means
necessary against an assailant.
Not a good analogy. A better analogy is a non-fatal cancerous cyst or
tumour.
Simple. The embryo/fetus is using the woman's body without her
permission.
Usually it's without the husband/boyfriend's permission or the woman's
parents permission, if you will. In a lot of cases of abortion I've
known about it was actually the boyfriends/husbands or even the woman's
parents choice, and not the woman's. I can safely say that around 70%
of abortions occur despite the fact that the woman actually wanted to
remain pregnant, but aborted reluctantly because of pressure from the
aforementioned others! Still, you have a point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 09:01:28 AM |
|
|
wrote:
And,since the embryo/fetus is essentially using and abusing the woman's
body without her continuing consent, it is effectively assaulting her,
and she is allowed under the law to defend herself by any means
necessary against an assailant.
Not a good analogy. A better analogy is a non-fatal cancerous cyst or
tumour.
Even better is a parasitic organism.
Simple. The embryo/fetus is using the woman's body without her
permission.
Usually it's without the husband/boyfriend's permission or the woman's
parents permission, if you will.
Why should she have to get their permissions? It is her body, not
theirs.
In a lot of cases of abortion I've
known about it was actually the boyfriends/husbands or even the woman's
parents choice, and not the woman's.
If that is what the woman wants, then fine. However, the last word
should always be the pregnant woman's.
I can safely say that around 70%
of abortions occur despite the fact that the woman actually wanted to
remain pregnant, but aborted reluctantly because of pressure from the
aforementioned others!
Then such women need to be taught to stand up for themselves more, and
not cave into pressure for what they believe is wrong.
Mark Sebree
Still, you have a point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "sunny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
29 Nov 2005 11:46:45 PM |
|
|
Just because a person consented to sex does not mean he/she consented
to becoming a parent. Just because I consent to go for a ride in my
friend's car does not mean i consented to get in an acccident on the
road. It was not my intention to get hit by a truck. Yes, it was a
very real risk that I took, but I did not DESERVE to have an accident
happen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: More Constitutional support for Roe vs Wade |
30 Nov 2005 08:32:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:30:01 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<5T9jf.3176$wi2.100@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"vernonner3voltazim" <vnemitz@pinn.net> wrote in message
news:1133323837.792499.204620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here is a piece of reasoning that indicates the Supreme Court made the
correct decision in denying person status to unborn humans: Amendment
13 forbids involuntary servitude outside of due process of law. If a
woman does not want to be pregnant, and the unborn is not a person,
then there is no conflict because an abortion merely kills an animal
(which it certainly purely IS in scientific fact). But if the unborn is
declared to be a person, then the unwilling pregnant woman is now in
involuntary servitude to that unborn human, OUTSIDE OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW. She has committed no crime, much less been convicted of one, such
that involuntary servitude to the unborn can be required of her.
Better, therefore, that granting personhood to the unborn be avoided in
the first place. SO, TO ALL WHO WOULD AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO GRANT
PERSONHOOD TO UNBORN HUMANS, EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING AMENDMENT 13?
For such servitude to be involuntary would imply a rape case.
Consensual sex acts are considered voluntary acts. Any resulting pregnancy
would not be considered a consequence of an involuntary act.
Irrelevant. Driving is a voluntary act yet an accident is not
considered a consequence of a voluntary act.
Also, if the unborn are considered persons, then how would aborting them not
be in violation of the 13th Amendment or of their due process rights?
They aren't. But if they were what gives them the right to use the
life support system of someone who does not want their body used for
this purpose?
How is subjugating the unborn person to involuntary servitude to Pro-Choice
not in violation of the 13th Amendment?
How is demanding a woman provide her body for the benefit of another
person when that is against her wishes not involuntary servitude?
Can anyone at all under any conditions demand I provide any part of my
body or any product of my body for their benefit up to and including
life support?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
