Hey genius, an implanted embryo is the same as a non-implanted embryo. See, it's a "human" embryo. That's right, it's DNA is human DNA. That's why it has legal status as a person -as in "human being." Oh, by the way, an embryo's DNA is complete at conception. The DNA is not developing along with the embryo; it is complete. What's the big deal? Only that DNA is what makes each of us unique and what makes us human. The DNA in an embryo is not undergoing some change to become a salamander or a ant; it's set at conception. So, arguing about whether an embroyo is not really human because he or she was implanted, is meaningless.

Okay, genius. Read the article. He's not insinuating that it is not human. He is saying that one part of the law insinuates that it can survive on it's own and the other is saying that it can't so it's murder. Just asking them to make up their minds!

When you cook an egg do you say your cooking chicken?

Hey Genius, embryos have no "legal status" as "human beings". Period. An embryo is no more a "human being" than the skin cells you slough in bed at night. They too have a full complement of DNA and can be turned into a fetus and a born child

So arguing about whether an embryo is really a human being because it was or wasn't implanted is EXACTLY what folks like GW Bush do

I think the point of the original article is actually that "legal status" is silly and meaningless in the case of an embryo, so to argue that it all of a sudden matters is pretty disingenuous ...

As for those skin cells I'm sloughing off, a) hard to define them as living (they aren't replicating, growing, etc, etc), b) hard to define them as separate (they have my and only my DNA in them), c) hard to define them as whole (they're skin cells, you may take the DNA and create a clone, but they won't be doing that 'naturally' or independently). Where would you draw the line between "embryo" and "human being"?

Slough cells by definition are separate - they may not be genetically distinct but they are separate. And when treated with the appropriate hormonal bath (just as fertilized ova require appropriate hormonal baths to replicate), they become biologically indistinguishable from a blastocyst formed from a fertilized ovum.

As for my drawing the line between embryo and human being, I find no reason to do so. Legally the line is drawn at birth, and very very few actually oppose this. Why? Because well over 70% of the population supports abortion to save the life of the host woman.

OK, but if the fetus truly is a "human child" then the same rules as those of a human child would apply. And would you drain the blood or take a vital organ of a born child (thereby causing the child's death) just to save the mother? Of course not. Yet that is exactly what the "life of the mother" exception is that has such broad support.

Clearly then, for all those that support a "life of the mother" exception, only truly believe that an embryo becomes a "human being" at birth.

And since I am a man, I don't get to tell any woman what to do with her body, so my opinino on where an embryo becomes a "human being" doesn't matter. Even more so since even if I believed that it becomes a "human being" upon fertilization of the ovum (That's the catholic dogma) I would not be willing to cede To The Government, the power to compel any of its citizens to donate their body or their organs to "promote life".

degsme:

And since I am a man, I don't get to tell any woman what to do with her body, so my opinino on where an embryo becomes a "human being" doesn't matter.

It's a good thing we live in an industrialized country, because I don't get to tell any woman to breast feed her baby. If she won't do it, I can just feed the baby imitation breast milk (formula) from a bottle. Too bad for those repressed women in developing countries where men force them to breast feed children.

Seriously, you must not have children. You can't honestly believe that your opinion on when your own son or daughter "becomes" a human is irrelevant. I'll be damned if I leave the fate of my own son or daughter to the whim of an emotionally vulnerable woman.

Oh, and what was your point about some 70% majority opinion? Maybe if we could just get 70% of people to agree that slavery isn't so bad, or that the Final Solution is a great idea.

I've raised two sons - the youngest goes to college in less than a month.

And yeah, LEGALLY - which is solely what the debate about what THE GOVERNMENT can FORCE us to do is about - it becomes a "human" at birth. As I pointed out, anyone who supports an exception for "the mother's life" (or any lesser reason), clearly sees the fetus as "lesser" than a born child because none of them would advocate a medical procedure on a born child that would save the mother but kill the born child. Thus the fetal "child" necessarily is "less human" than the born child. Thus the act of birth is the distinguishing border even for those think they believe that humanity starts at conception.

BTW, your breast feeding example underscores my point. In the case that a woman dies in childbirth, her born child is given to a wet-nurse to nurse. And the wet-nurse is COMPENSATED for feeding the child.

Thus FORCING a woman to breast feed is compelling her into service against her will. IE Involuntary servitude. And in the USA, Am 13 precludes ANY act by THE GOVERNMENT that compells involuntary servitude.

Degsme,

I'm not sure the Am 13 analogy works on this issue. Who is the woman involuntarily serving when she is forced to carry her baby to term? The fetus? The State? What service is she providing? I would say she serves the fetus by providing nourishment and a safe environment in which to grow (and that for only nine months, at which point she may give him up for adoption). It seems that child support has the same elements of involuntary servitude. In this case a man must work to provide for the care of a dependent child. He is thus a slave to his son or daughter. You will object and say that the son or daughter receiving the benefit of child support is a born human and thus of a completely different legal status than the fetus. Then are we saying that involuntary servitude to a born human is legally justifiable, while that to an unborn human is not? Maybe you've been against child support all along.

BTW, my breast feeding example says nothing about the mother dying, so I don't see how it underscores your point. If you want to make up a new example where the mother dies to underscore your point, that's fine. Just don't call your new example my example. As far as your new example, is the wet-nurse compensated out of thin air (as your passive phrasing suggests) or is someone who is responsible for the care of the child renumerating the wet-nurse? That is, are the responsible adults being forced to pay a wet-nurse? If they didn't provide in some way for the child's nourishment, that would be neglect, no?

Child support is voluntary. As with the wet nurse, or as with obligations to a born child, these are VOLUNTARY actions. A parent, guardian or wet nurse can renounce their obligations to the born child. To do so requires them to also renounce their rights over that child, but the fact that they can voluntarily renounce their rights and obligations means that their continued engagement in supporting the child is voluntary.

But what about court ordered child support? Ah there is the magical term - "court ordered". IE it is a due process TORT claim that was leveled against the parent being asked for support. That parent has the ability to go to court and defend their claims why this tort does not apply to them. And even if they lose that, they can then choose not to work and not have their wages garnished for that support. So the decision to pay child support comes only after losing via due process in court, and then voluntarily choosing to continue to work. So there is no "involuntary" aspect there.

As for whom the host woman is in "servitude to" - that depends.

• Currently fetuses have no legal standing as persons, so the servitude is to The State in its "compelling interest" to "promote life". Courts have clearly ruled that carrying a pregnancy to term is a valuable service (all the groundwork for surrogacy contracts). So if the State compels a woman to carry a fetus to term, they are compelling servitude. If this is against her will, the state is compelling involuntary servitude
• If you grant fetuses "legal personhood" then the servitude is clearly to the "fetal person". But again this doesn't matter because the State is enforcing this servitude against the voluntary will of the host woman.

And the text of Amendment 13 is very clear. Involuntary Servitude cannot be enforced by The Government in any way - even indirectly.

Now there are 2 Constitutional exceptions to this: The "militia clause" which allows the draft, and the 16th Amendment that allows income taxes. But note, that even something as inanimate as money cannot be taken by The Government without Constitutional text authorizing The Government to act. Where is the text that allows The Government to take control of a woman's body?

Feel free to show me the text from the US Constitution. I recommend you read it because I don't think you have done so recently. Otherwise you would not be asking these quesitons.

Your whole argument rests on the premise that carrying a child to term is involuntary servitude. Based on this test, only fetuses conceived from rapes would qualify. Otherwise, the pregnancy is completely voluntary, as the woman could volunteer to abstain from intercourse.

As for voluntary child support, in a weak sense you are right. You could volunteer to make no income and become homeless. You could volunteer to evade the law and make your money in the underground economy. You could volunteer to flee the country. Antebellum slavery was similarly voluntary. A slave could voluntarily run away. He could voluntarily endure beatings rather than work in the fields. He could volunteer to lead uprisings.

It doesn't matter if at some point the pregnancy was voluntary. The Involuntary Servitude clause in Am 13 was put in place to preclude "voluntary" contracts that at some later point became involuntary but were being enforced. These were what we now call indentured servitude. In those cases individuals would enter into a contract for future labor in return for some current benefit (fronting homestead money, cost of sea-voyage from england etc). And those are covered by the Involuntary Servitude clause

Alternatively you could claim that this is a case of Strict Liability where there is a liabilty associated with your actions even if you didn't intend the consequences (such as the asbestos cases). But again, that liability is limited to the existing assets. You cannot compell the executives of WR Grace to become your uncompensated servants anymore than the government can compell a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will.

As for child support - setting aside the fact that child support only is assigned after a due process (which aligns with the conviction exception in the amendment), your slavery example does not work. I don't have to evade the law to avoid paying child support. I simply stop working for cash.

Slaves, who tried to just stop working, could and often were, beaten to death. No such penalty can apply to you just for not working. Your comparison fails.

Child support that is the consequence of a trial is not involuntary servitude in the context of the 13th amendment.

At this point, who is slave to whom? Indeed, the fetus is not there by choice. She is trapped inside her mother and is forced to subsist on nutrients provided by the mother alone. She could commit matricide, but then she would perish as well. She has no recourse but to wait for 9 months for her freedom from the womb (at the mercy of her mother, of course). Her rights are subservient to those of her mother.

Besides the fact that equating the human-created institutions of slavery and indentured servitude with the natural process of procreation is invidious, your argument rests on the fact that the fetus currently has no legal standing as a person. Why no personhood? It is not because of the 13th amendment. In fact, the Constitution does not provide explicit criteria for personhood. (The 14th does provide criteria for citizenship, but that is another matter) [I must say you have successfully pulled me into your world of arguing the legality of feticide, rather than its morality. Congratulations.]

The courts' current understanding of personhood implies to me is that the fetus is regarded as a thing or property (humans regarded as property?), rendering the 13th amendment moot to the question of feticide. I suppose you may be saying that if feticide were banned while at the same time the fetus still lacked legal standing as a person, then your argument is that the government can't tell you what to do with your own property. (eminent domain?) If the fetus is neither a person (subject) nor a thing (object), what is the third option? (excuse my asking questions. I always thought that's how you learned stuff.)

Or maybe you are arguing that the fetus cannot be granted legal standing as a person because this would cause a contradiction with the 13th amendment. However, you already noted exceptions to the 13th amendment. It seems such a fetus exception is plausible, if it is even necessary.

Our current situation is that a group of 9 lawyers got together and decided for themselves the proper criteria for personhood (of course, as always, they fit the criteria). Now suppose that some new lawyers decided that a fetus is a person by virtue that it is a human being, or that the constitution was amended to make it explicit. Now the mother is ostensibly serving the child involuntarily. A few problems with this. The child is not intentionally indenturing the mother. The child is as much a slave to the pregnancy. Additionally, continuing a pregnancy is passive (except maybe you eat more). Doing nothing cannot seriously be construed as servitude.

But, ultimately, none of this matters. It boils down to this: If the fetus is not a person, then the 13th amendent is moot. If she is, she is protected by the 14th.

The fetus lacks sufficient cognition to make a choice of location. We leave that to the discretion of the Guardian. If the host woman renounces parental obligations and rights, then the government gets to decide where the fetus can reside. But that decision no more enslaves the fetus than having a born child have to move with its parents to another state.

Besides the fact that equating the human-created institutions of slavery and indentured servitude with the natural process of procreation is invidious, your argument rests on the fact that the fetus currently has no legal standing as a person. Why no personhood?

Whether it is invidious or not, is a belief, not a fact. The words of Am 13 are very clear. That you don't like how they apply is of no consequence. Nor does my arguement rest on the fetus having no personhood - it is in fact bifurcated.

1. The Fetus has no personhood, then the "involuntary servitude" is to The Government
2. The fetus is a 'fetal person' - then the "involuntary servitude" is to the fetus.

Neither form of involuntary servitude can be legally enforced by The Government. Which means The Government cannot legally regulate Ru-486 based abortions.

Am 14 protections do not give The Government the right to violate Am 13. So Am 14 doesn't give THE GOVERNEMNT the right to prohibit abortions.