Abortion Part 2: A logical appeal

Atticus is the author of the progressive-right political and lifestyle blog BlogTruth. His experience spans almost a decade providing business and consulting services to firms across the globe. Stop by his blog and say hello.

Forced Labor?

Andre Koppleman argued in his book “Forced Labor: A Thirteen Amendment Defense of Abortion” that “when women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to ‘involuntary servitude’ in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.”

This argument, once again, only takes into consideration the property rights of the mother and does not in any way consider the property rights of the very life in question, the fetus.  Does the woman’s supposed constitutional law of “involuntary servitude”, a.k.a. pregnancy, supersede the right to life of the child?  If this is the case, one could logically argue that parenthood itself “even if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy” is involuntary servitude and the parents should thus have the right to dispose of their children at any point it becomes convenient. No one is arguing this though – the moral and lawful implications are somehow more obvious after a child has been born then while it remains in the womb.  Andre’s argument is ridiculous.

Natural Rights

Thus, if you conclude that any person has the natural property right to their own life – then an unborn child should not be excluded.  The idea that an unborn child has less rights than the mother because it requires her for survival is a fallacy.  The notion that consensual sex resulting in pregnancy is involuntary servitude is absurd.  The excuses made by those to uphold the laws that allow for abortion only support those individuals who are to selfish or to ignorant to accept the consequences of their own actions.

Defenders of abortion act as if a child, especially the unborn, are somehow the private property of the parents.  That the child has not rights of their own.  However, as we have seen though out history that when one human being treats another human being as property the results can only be evil.  For example, in the ridiculous supreme court ruling, Dred Scott v. Sanford the court ruled that blacks, “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.” Almost 200 years later we can clearly see that this is a gross violation of property rights, the constitution and morality.  Even the most devout proponent of abortion would agree!  However, we somehow justify treating an unborn child as property; not depriving them of only there liberty, but also their life.

Conclusion

If the proponents of abortion are right then at what point do we as individuals of free thought and action have to accept responsibility for our own deeds – at what point do our actions and the consequences of those actions matter – at what point do we really stop punishing those who are merely the innocent bi-products of a consensual deed, when do we protect the innocent and uphold the rights of every individual who fall under the jurisdiction of the United States?  It’s time to stop living a lie and admit that despite our desires to pass the buck or avoid inconvenience we are responsible for our actions and cannot morally or lawfully punish the innocent to exalt ourselves.