Lifers support slavery.
John went to Vegas to gamble. John signed a contract at one off-the-Strip casino whereby if he rolled a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, he would receive $10,000, but if he rolled a 1, he would be compelled to work for the casino doing odd jobs for nine months, receiving only food and shelter in return. In the law we have a word for such a contract: void.
The Thirteenth Amendment states: "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."
One can contract for employment; one cannot contract for employment without the ability to unilaterally terminate.
If John rolled a 1, then started working for the casino, then, after two months, decided to leave, the casino would be liable for unjust imprisonment if it were to prevent his doing so. Furthermore, the casino would not be able to seek damages from John for the seven months he failed to work. And the U.S., Nevada, and Las Vegas governments would all be specifically precluded by the Thirteenth Amendment from helping the casino realize its value lost, or preventing John from realizing his freedom.
If instead of a casino, John formed the above-described contract with Billy the Imbecile. Now we have two grounds to void the contract: both the Thirteenth Amendment and the incapacity of one of the contracting parties.
If John formed the above-described contract with Billy the Imbecile, and when John decided to leave after two months, Billy tried to stop him using physical force, John would be within his rights to retaliate with force, even deadly force, to secure his freedom.
If instead of Billy using physical force to stop John, he simply threatened force, John would still be within his rights to retaliate.
If instead of Billy threatening or using physical force to stop John, he simply stands in front of the only exit, John is legally permitted to shove Billy out of the way (assuming asking Billy to move is ineffective).
Now consider the following: John and Billy form the above-described contract. John loses by rolling a 1. John works for two months as Billy's valet. John decides he wants out. Billy, without threats or use of physical force, stands in front of the only door and refuses to budge. The floor in the foyer has been removed while it is being repaired, so there is a twenty foot drop on either side of the temporary bridge that leads from the door into the house. John can either 1) wait until Billy decides to move, or 2) shove Billy out of the way. Should John be permitted to shove Billy out of the way, knowing that doing so will result in Billy falling to his death? I contend the answer is obvious: yes. One person's right to be free from slavery trumps another's right to be alive. And I don't think John must wait until his life is in danger.
What's the point of all this? The pro-lifers have two hurdles to overcome in every case where they seek to block an abortion:
Yes, I know that the act of coitus differs from the act of signing a contract. If anything, though, I would think it cuts against the lifers. At most you have an implied contract between the fetus and pregnant woman based upon her consent to receive a third party's ejaculate.
Yes, I know a fetus differs from Billy the Imbecile in many respects. But again, I would suggest this cuts against the lifers. While there is the possibility of talking Billy away from the door, there is little chance of talking the fetus out of the womb prematurely.
Yes, I know feeding and sheltering a fetus differs from acting as Billy's valet. But again, I would suggest this cuts against the lifers. I would expect the danger to the pregnant woman's health, the restrictions on her ability to enjoy life, and the repulsive closeness of the slaveowner-fetus's demands may far exceed any duties demanded of a valet. And besides, do we really want to get into the actual demands made by the slaveowner? Does slavery become okay simply because the slaveowner only requires his slaves to work eight hour days, feeds them well, and never abuses them?
Perhaps one could argue John doesn't have the right to shove Billy away from the door, and that John's moral and legal duty is to die of dehydration, or at least wait until dehydration is imminent before shoving Billy. Or perhaps one could argue if John knew for sure that Billy would move in seven months, he ought to wait; and it becomes permissible to shove Billy only if John does not know for how long Billy intends to remain. But these seem to me to be too fine hairs to be good for splitting.
In conclusion: pro-lifers support slavery insofar as they wish to deny a pregnant woman the right to free herself from a fetus who demands her employment. As with every employment relationship in modernity, both parties must be legally capable of unilaterally terminating the relationship; pregnancy without the abortion choice removes that possibility.
Support the abortion option by placing a sticker on your car or forehead.
The Thirteenth Amendment states: "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."
One can contract for employment; one cannot contract for employment without the ability to unilaterally terminate.
If John rolled a 1, then started working for the casino, then, after two months, decided to leave, the casino would be liable for unjust imprisonment if it were to prevent his doing so. Furthermore, the casino would not be able to seek damages from John for the seven months he failed to work. And the U.S., Nevada, and Las Vegas governments would all be specifically precluded by the Thirteenth Amendment from helping the casino realize its value lost, or preventing John from realizing his freedom.
If instead of a casino, John formed the above-described contract with Billy the Imbecile. Now we have two grounds to void the contract: both the Thirteenth Amendment and the incapacity of one of the contracting parties.
If John formed the above-described contract with Billy the Imbecile, and when John decided to leave after two months, Billy tried to stop him using physical force, John would be within his rights to retaliate with force, even deadly force, to secure his freedom.
If instead of Billy using physical force to stop John, he simply threatened force, John would still be within his rights to retaliate.
If instead of Billy threatening or using physical force to stop John, he simply stands in front of the only exit, John is legally permitted to shove Billy out of the way (assuming asking Billy to move is ineffective).
Now consider the following: John and Billy form the above-described contract. John loses by rolling a 1. John works for two months as Billy's valet. John decides he wants out. Billy, without threats or use of physical force, stands in front of the only door and refuses to budge. The floor in the foyer has been removed while it is being repaired, so there is a twenty foot drop on either side of the temporary bridge that leads from the door into the house. John can either 1) wait until Billy decides to move, or 2) shove Billy out of the way. Should John be permitted to shove Billy out of the way, knowing that doing so will result in Billy falling to his death? I contend the answer is obvious: yes. One person's right to be free from slavery trumps another's right to be alive. And I don't think John must wait until his life is in danger.
What's the point of all this? The pro-lifers have two hurdles to overcome in every case where they seek to block an abortion:
- showing that a particular mass of pre-birth tissue is a rights-bearing individual, and
- showing that a pregnant woman's right to be free from slavery under the circumstances is trumped by the aforementioned pre-birth tissue's right to be alive.
Yes, I know that the act of coitus differs from the act of signing a contract. If anything, though, I would think it cuts against the lifers. At most you have an implied contract between the fetus and pregnant woman based upon her consent to receive a third party's ejaculate.
Yes, I know a fetus differs from Billy the Imbecile in many respects. But again, I would suggest this cuts against the lifers. While there is the possibility of talking Billy away from the door, there is little chance of talking the fetus out of the womb prematurely.
Yes, I know feeding and sheltering a fetus differs from acting as Billy's valet. But again, I would suggest this cuts against the lifers. I would expect the danger to the pregnant woman's health, the restrictions on her ability to enjoy life, and the repulsive closeness of the slaveowner-fetus's demands may far exceed any duties demanded of a valet. And besides, do we really want to get into the actual demands made by the slaveowner? Does slavery become okay simply because the slaveowner only requires his slaves to work eight hour days, feeds them well, and never abuses them?
Perhaps one could argue John doesn't have the right to shove Billy away from the door, and that John's moral and legal duty is to die of dehydration, or at least wait until dehydration is imminent before shoving Billy. Or perhaps one could argue if John knew for sure that Billy would move in seven months, he ought to wait; and it becomes permissible to shove Billy only if John does not know for how long Billy intends to remain. But these seem to me to be too fine hairs to be good for splitting.
In conclusion: pro-lifers support slavery insofar as they wish to deny a pregnant woman the right to free herself from a fetus who demands her employment. As with every employment relationship in modernity, both parties must be legally capable of unilaterally terminating the relationship; pregnancy without the abortion choice removes that possibility.
Support the abortion option by placing a sticker on your car or forehead.
1 Comments:
All restraints upon man's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple
maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each
other only in degree. -Lysander Spooner, lawyer (1808-1887)
Post a Comment
<< Home