Dear Mr. Saletan,

Please be more careful in your use of analogies with respect to an issue so important as abortion, where nothing other than the life of a human being is at risk.

("Here's this woman who just wants to be separated from her embryo. And lo and behold, it's already separate! No need to agonize. Just detach it and let it grow. It's separate, it's whole, it's living. Cancel the abortion. Perform a separation instead.")

By your analogy I should also be able to "separate" myself, with no legal recourse, from my child, who is a total nightmare (hypothetically). Can I just let detach her and let her go and grow? Isn't she whole, and living?

Look, I can't even leave my dog in the car for 5 minutes without being prosecuted for animal abuse, and he, God love him, has neither a soul, nor any rights granted by the Constitution. Yet a woman can, via abortion, stop a beating heart, at nearly any time prior to birth, because SHE wants to.

I agree with you that the beginning to the solution is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, however, once life has been started (not to be confused with "created"), the choice of the mother is moot. That life has a Constitutional right to exist, even if such existence requires the unwilling participation of the host. A mother should no more be able to separate herself from the embryo, fetus, etc., than she could from a child that she perhaps wishes she didn't have.

While the moral implications of this discussion could go on and on, as they have been, the legal implications are crystal clear; only political fear has prevented a resolution. Assuming we desire to maintain the rights, and responsibilities, the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution, which are set into context by the Declaration of Independence, we MUST accept the fact that we are all "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Notice that they put "Life" first!

You state that you "don't like abortions", and I accept your sincerity on this matter. I would now encourage and challenge you to use the power of your pulpit to make a more defineable stand. Search your conscience and spiritual beliefs to see if your "dislike" deserves to become moral outrage. Think back to say, the 1950's, when many Americans said things like "I don't like segregation, and racism, but what can I do?" Substitute "abortion" for "segregation", and that seems to be where many Americans, youself included, seem to be today.

Finally, I do not know if you are a Christian man, or even spiritual, but in regards to your somewhat tepid "dislike" I will bring your attention to Revelations 3:16, "Since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth". Don't get spit out, be steadfast, take a stand, leave it all out on the floor, go to the mat!

Respectfully, Michael K.

Actually, Michael, women do detach themselves from their children that they don't want. They give them up for adoption, they abandon them, they turn them over to state agencies, they foist them onto relatives, etc. In many of those cases, it is a good thing, as forcing those women to continue to be a mother would be good for neither them or the child. It happens relatively rarely, but does happen and we generally don't put them in jail.

I would acknowledge that they don't kill them. That would be murder, of course. But that is because we all agree that a child in the world is a human being and has a right to live. We do not all agree that a fetus in a womb is a human being in a meaningful sense and that it too has those rights. At what point it does is, obviously, a source of great debate, and until we all agree on that point, every woman deserves to deal with her situation as she sees fit.

Asking Mr Saleton to be more aggressive on your interpretation of this debate is asking for him to be something he is, perhaps, not. But you can ask, and you can ask women to consider your position, but, so far, you cannot legislate that opinion for every woman.

Michael K.:

I agree with you that the beginning to the solution is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, however, once life has been started (not to be confused with "created"), the choice of the mother is moot. That life has a Constitutional right to exist, even if such existence requires the unwilling participation of the host. A mother should no more be able to separate herself from the embryo, fetus, etc., than she could from a child that she perhaps wishes she didn't have.

Oh, where to start first.... How about "once life has been started, the choice of the mother is moot"? So, in your world view, all that matters is that two cells have come together and begun to split and form more cells. At that point, the living, breathing, thinking person that these cells reside in is no longer of any importance, other than as an incubator? Hmmm. Okay, I make it a point to not argue with people who have entrenched, if illogical, positions, so I'll simply ask if that includes when the incubator, er, woman was raped? What about if she is barely a woman--11, 12, 13 or so years old and she's been systematically sexually abused? The unwanted mitosis taking place within her body is of more worth than the girl or woman? If so, I can only say, "Wow". Because that's a seriously hardline, yet easy, for you, a man who will never be subjected to that, to have.

Then there's "That life has a Constitutional right to exist, even if such existence requires the unwilling participation of the host". Uh, no. Not currently. Not in this country. Perhaps you're from another country where religion and government are so intertwined that even those that don't believe in your faith are required to live by those laws. In the US, however, a fetus does not have a Constitutional right to exist that precludes the rights of the mother. Even though Right-to-Lifers have been lobbying for just such a Constitutional amendment, it hasn't come to fruition. That would be why you all have resorted to simply making it so difficult to get one that the women least equipped, financially, to bear a child are the ones that are forced to do so. Rich women do as they always have and go where it is not so difficult. I'm sure that you probably consider that a partial victory, at least, as "A mother should no more be able to separate herself from the embryo, fetus, etc., than she could from a child that she perhaps wishes she didn't have." And by the way, that last part? Again, sir, I say "wow". That's hardcore. I mean, you don't want her to have an abortion and she's not even allowed to give the baby up for adoption or to a relative or anything? Guess that'll teach that slut to keep her legs closed.

Okay, perhaps that last line was a bit harsh, but geeze, did you really think that last line through at all?

Finally, I do not know if you are a Christian man, or even spiritual, but in regards to your somewhat tepid "dislike" I will bring your attention to Revelations 3:16, "Since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth". Don't get spit out, be steadfast, take a stand, leave it all out on the floor, go to the mat!

Respectfully, Michael K.

Respectfully, Michael, this is the most nonsensical part of your argument. If the author doesn't believe in your god, he's probably not too worried about getting "spit out". I know I'm not.

Honestly, though, and all religious beliefs aside -- what have YOU done to "walk the walk"? Aside from not having an abortion (and as a man, that's an easy one, right?) and making posts about how women shouldn't be able to have one, either? Have you provided shelter and aid to a girl or woman in dire straights who is pregnant and doesn't know what she's going to do? Have you taken in an unwanted child or two or more? Have you lobbied for better access to medical care for indigent pregnant women? Have you protested for better, higher quality, more accessible, subsidized child care for the poor and the underpriviledged? Have you written posts about the need for better sex education and access to birth control (because it costs $40 a month for the Pill these days, even with health insurance) for women of limited means? Because, Michael, respectfully, if you haven't done any of those things, your opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight.

What a funny society we live in. People expect the courts and government to legislate descriptions about what life is, how we should live life, what one can or cannot do with their body, etc. But the difficulty is...they are only humans just like everyone else. They make decisions based on their own beliefs, or of some lobbyist. Just because the courts decide something, does not mean that they know better than the people. And God gave us....FREE WILL. Funny that. That means we have a choice in all matters. So when anyone, or a whole group, try to decide what any one person should do with their body...I just shake my head. I like the bumper sticker: If you are against abortion, don't have one!

People want to decide for the society at large what is right, and what is wrong. Yet, that is not the right of anyone, or group, to make decisions for others. We have Free Will. And if you believe in a Loving God/Creator, than we are Loved no matter what we do. No, abortion is not a simple decision, and information is important in making any decision. But legislating beliefs and opinions, which this world is made of, does not allow people to decide their own Life.

So when anyone, or a whole group, try to decide what any one person should do with their body...I just shake my head. I like the bumper sticker: If you are against abortion, don't have one!

Talk about cop-out! There's the little problem of "their body" - if I want to use "my hand" to hit someone else's face (ie, move it through the space where their face just happens to be), it's no longer "my right" to do so ... is it??!

People want to decide for the society at large what is right, and what is wrong. Yet, that is not the right of anyone, or group, to make decisions for others. We have Free Will. And if you believe in a Loving God/Creator, than we are Loved no matter what we do. No, abortion is not a simple decision, and information is important in making any decision. But legislating beliefs and opinions, which this world is made of, does not allow people to decide their own Life.

Legislating/forcing morality doesn't work, you're right. But hiding your head in the sand doesn't produce a society that's worth living in either. In the end, making robbery, assault, murder, etc illegal is legislating morality, it's not just saying "if you don't want to steal, don't!". Is abortion an easy choice? No. Is it an easy question, even theoretically? No. Should we all just sit back and let people make the choice on their own? Also *no*.

It's a discussion/debate we need to have, just as we don't let a mother abandon a child at one month of age without repercussions, maybe, just maybe we should figure out why they can do so at some arbitrary point for any arbitrary reason before it travels the extra 6 inches out into the real world ...

Just two things I want to point out 'cause I see them way too often in these debates:

, so I'll simply ask if that includes when the incubator, er, woman was raped? What about if she is barely a woman--11, 12, 13 or so years old and she's been systematically sexually abused? The unwanted mitosis taking place within her body is of more worth than the girl or woman? If so, I can only say, "Wow".

Because that's a seriously hardline, yet easy, for you, a man who will never be subjected to that, to have.

If you've never heard of 'ad hominem', go look it up. Humans are ... errr ... created? evolved? (sorry, don't want to get that started) with this thing called empathy, and most of us have some sort of moral compass. It's always easier to look at things from a theoretical standpoint (I sincerely hope you were doing so for the 11, 12, or 13 year old victim of abuse above), but falling back to saying "you're a man, you know nothing" didn't work in kindergarten, and shouldn't work here.

Because a woman has control over her body. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is the same as turning her body into a vessel owned by the government. As long as a fetus cannot live outside the womb without extraordinary support, it is part of the woman, and she should have the right to terminate it if she wishes.

Even if the pro-life crowd were willing pay for all medical care related to every pregnancy that a mother was considering terminating, and willing to adopt every child so that the only burden on the mother would be to carry the fetus and deliver the child, they still should not have the right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes if the fetus cannot live outside the body on its own.

So if a mother is raped and badly injured with internal organ damage then in this "hard case" you would deem it OK for The Government, in the interest of "promoting life" compel her born son to donate his liver - even though that would kill him?

Either you are for a woman's right to control her body and deny that power to The Government, or you are not, there really is no middle ground.

Either The Government has a right to compel women into involuntary servitude to the fetus (against the explicit prohibition in the 13th Amendment) or it lacks that power.

Which is it?

however, once life has been started (not to be confused with "created"), the choice of the mother is moot. That life has a Constitutional right to exist, even if such existence requires the unwilling participation of the host

OK. I'll bite. The Text of the US Constitution can be found here. Where is the text that grants anyone a "constitutional right to exist". Just show me the text.

As for the "unwilling participation of the host" - that's essentially saying that the host woman has to be in service to the fetal life even if that's involuntary right?

But last I checked This passage in the US Constitution explictly forbids The Government from doing anything to enforce such an "unwilling participation"

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

So on one hand the US Constitution EXPLICTLY FORBIDS The Government from forcing a woman to "unwilling[ly] participat[e] [as] the host".

How do you resolve the claim you made against the very clear and explict text of the US Constitution?

Degs, I am writing from ignorance here, as far as you know, has any court adopted what I'll call the involuntary servitude theory as a basis for prohibiting state action to forbid abortion? I haven't read the cases, but I don't recall that theory being advanced.

Second, how would child support laws fit into that equation? An obligor parent will have his or her liberty curtailed pretty quickly if that parent were to choose, say, leaving a job with a substantial earning capacity to live on the beach on handouts. Is the demarcation the decision to give birth? For that matter, support laws often work both ways - - children can be compelled to support their indigent parents in some cases, or at least be required to pay for services provided on behalf of the indigent parent.

Again, what if bio father is against the decision? Mom can't be compelled, but dad can? Dad is bound as of his decision to have intercourse, but mom is not? These are just off the top of my head.

Finally, are you aware of any court decision that has defined "human reproduction" as "involuntary servitude"? I am asking because if it has not been so defined, or if this argument has not even been advanced, I'm not sure it is totally relevant as a practical matter to discuss that as a standard, because that is not how any laws pro or con are going to interpreted by the judiciary. Of course, if you feel that is a better standard, you have every right to advocate for it.

The Am 13 arguement has been succesful at Apellate level only. It is a more absolute, but narrower set of rights than Roe - especially in the first 2 trimesters, so it has not been a priority. But the reality is that if Roe gets overturned and you are going to see this pursued aggressively. And if succesful, the more absolute nature of this protection is going to be much more unpalatable for the anti-choicers than what they have today.

Child support only gets allocated as a consequence of a tort judgement - IE a "due process conviction". Furthermore, if I leave a good paying job for living on the beach - I cannot be arrested. All my assets can get attached, but I cannot be arrested.

Note, the issue is not that "human reproduction" is "involuntary servitude". But lots of courts have found that carrying a fetus to term is servitude of value (all the groundwork for surrogacy). And if it is servitude of value, then when it is involuntary - it necessarily is involuntary servitude.

And the judiciary is pretty clear that when The Govermment compells servitude against ones will, with the exception of the Militia Clause and Am 16, it is Involuntary servitude. Courts will find compelled pregnancy (which is the flip side of prohibiting a woman from taking RU-486) as involuntary servitude.

Thanks for the clarification. The federal appellate level - - which circuit?

I'm not following your logic re: not being arrested for nonpayment of child support. The obligor will, when far enough behind, be brought into court, via a bench warrant if necessary, and can absolutely be held in contempt of court for failure to follow the order the court entered re: child support. One of the possible sanctions for contempt of court is jail time. It is not a tort judgment.

Ah but the charge there is contempt of court for failing to follow a tort judgement (the original child support order).

You are right that this is more complex than the somewhat cursory approach I've taken to the responses to those who say "well child support violates am 13" - but that's due to the format of this medium. Those arguing that are just trying to throw up counters to the underlying Am 13 prohibitions on government action.

At the core though, child support is done as a tort. And if you then act in a way that makes the court believe you are in contempt, then they can come after you for contempt of court. But contempt of court is not involuntary servitude.