During my many years researching abortion I have come to the conclusion that the focus of the debate needs to be shifted from what a zef 'is' to what a zef 'does'. This fundamental change in how the abortion debate is seen would be a ground-breaking change as it no longer relies on the pro-choice idea that there is no 'person' at conception .. in fact it makes that point irrelevant, and in fact uses pro-life ideology to strengthen the pro-choice position to the point that a justification can be made for government to fund ALL abortions regardless of the reasoning. The government has a duty of care to protect it's people from unconsented injury caused by a third party, and as such if a zef is considered a 'person' from conception and a woman explicitly says, by word or action, no to a pregnancy the state has a duty to provide her with all the means possible to stop her being injured by a third party. During the debate I have no doubt we will hear about implied consent, informed consent etc and no doubt the fallacy of the man making the woman pregnant will be raised, and I will dismantle each and every one of those arguments based on the current legal standings employed. This is not a debate in which moral viewpoints are relevant, it is purely based on legal standings and as such any attempt to derail the debate onto moral viewpoints will be ignored. So let us begin.
13th Amendment. Section 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. Now, the "pro-lifers" love to make the "moral" analogy of "abortion=slavery"....but let's look at the LEGAL analogy. Who would be the "slave" or "involuntary servant" if abortion were outlawed? The woman, right? She is now the "property" (as incubator) of the fetus and her rights are subordinated to the fetus (or embryo or even fertilized egg). The zef is the "master" and she the "slave". Now, while the "pro-lifer" might argue "There was implied consent to 'voluntary' servititude" when the woman engages in reproductive sex....that would implie a "contractual" situation, not an agreement to slavery. In other words, like somebody who signs a contract to work for another person or provide another person with a good or service voluntarily. While they can be sued for failure to comply with the "contract"....the Government cannot force someone to work for another person. So while the "pro-lifers" might have a basis to "impose a fine" on a woman for having an abortion, they can't force a woman to remain pregnant.
If women don't want to be incubators, they should use birth control. Also, pregnancy is not slavery. Unlike a slave during the 1800s, a pregnant women can live a normal life.
Like a slave owner during the 1800's you seem to think YOU determine what a "normal" life is for OTHER PEOPLE....lots in common...
Can we get back onto the premise of the thread topic please. This is about the legal standings relating to what is permitted in an non consensual pregnancy when the focus is not on what the fetus is but on what it does.
Sam, using a "slavery analogy" (Which I'm sure the people you read or listen to, do on abortion).... who would be the "master" and who the "slave"...if abortion were made illegal and a woman could be prosecuted for not subordinating her rights to the zef? BTW your "normal life" argument equally applies to slaves....they could eat, go to the bathroom, have sex or even marry other slaves, make fires for themselves in their cabins when they were cold, pray to God, sing work-songs.....lots of stuff..... just nothing that their master didn't want them to do. Would the "master" zef (or it's proxy, a "pro-life" Government) allow a "slave" woman ...to drink a lot of alcohol when she was pregnant? - - - Updated - - - The zef has a parasitic relationship to the woman. That's simple biology that the "pro-lifers" can try to obfuscate...but not deny. That relationship is voluntary on the woman's part now. If the "pro-lifers" got their desire, it would become involuntary on the woman's part. She would be the "servant" to the zef. That's involuntary servitude.
Comment wasn't aimed at you Gorn, as your response sits within the guide-lines of the OP. Strange though how the usual suspect (except one who tried to derail the topic) remain loud in their absence.
