Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When I think about the probable fate of Roe v Wade, my blood boils! [View all]CrispyQ
(36,461 posts)23. Not allowing women access to abortion is a violation of the 13th Amendment,
I don't know why the pro-choice groups don't use this argument.
The 13th Amendment and Forced Labor
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers
2010
Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth
Amendment and Abortion
Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University School of Law, akoppelman@law.northwestern.edu
I. The basic argument
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 [sic] 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.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers
2010
Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth
Amendment and Abortion
Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University School of Law, akoppelman@law.northwestern.edu
I. The basic argument
The Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows:
1. 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.
2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
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 [sic] 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.
Man created God to control woman & put himself at the top of the hierarchy of life. But here's the thing. When they put life in a hierarchy like that, their argument of Right to Life just lost its validity because some life has greater rights to life than other life, & of course, they get to decide who!
These men are fucked up, control freak assholes, & the women who vote for them are beyond my understanding.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
When I think about the probable fate of Roe v Wade, my blood boils! [View all]
CaliforniaPeggy
Sep 2018
OP
From a sign at the Women's March: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament!" nt
Atticus
Sep 2018
#1
The underground clinics are stocking up on pills even as you speak. There have been
Nay
Sep 2018
#62
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I think that all men who impregnate women should have
smirkymonkey
Sep 2018
#20
The hypocrisy is that many of these men will make sure their women have access to abortion.....
ProudMNDemocrat
Sep 2018
#51
As we now know, there's nothing in the constitution that affects the male body ! ;)
OnDoutside
Sep 2018
#24
Aw, thank you! I know it's rare for me to post like this. This topic is close to my heart.
CaliforniaPeggy
Sep 2018
#25
I was unaware of this amendment and the arguments that go with it. Thank you for your post.
CaliforniaPeggy
Sep 2018
#27
It costs them nothing, lets them feel morally superior, allows them to slut shame
catbyte
Sep 2018
#31
I don't think it would be quite that fast. Unless the fix is already in.
CaliforniaPeggy
Sep 2018
#44
When the number of Kowalskis in the Warszawa phone book outnumber the ones in Chicago
DFW
Sep 2018
#48
Honestly, have republicans thought about the societal costs of outlawing abortion?
smirkymonkey
Sep 2018
#57