Abortion, Bodily Autonomy, and Constitutional Rights

We always hear the “pro-life” crowd crowing about the “rights” of the unborn, but always missing from this conversation is any discussion about the rights of the mother. The assumption is always that “you’re pregnant so to hell with your rights, those of the baby take precedence”.

Notice my language here. I did not say fetus. I said baby. I’m going to concede up front that the fetus is a human being and not “just a piece of tissue”, but when I’m done, you’re going to be furious that you ever made this argument, because if you are “pro-life”, this is going to show you just what a hypocrite you really are, both about the constitution itself and about human rights generally.

If we begin with the assumption both the fetus and mother are human and have equal rights under the law, then we run into an interesting problem that happens elsewhere as well - we have a conflict of human rights.

The automatic unthinking presumption of the “pro-life” crowd is that the “right to life” trumps all other rights, but is that true?

The 14th amendment of the US Constitution reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Read that bolded part again. Then read it again. That applies to the mother in the case of abortion just as much as to the baby. The United States shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. No state shall make any law that shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Remember these things, because they apply to the mother as well. You cannot abridge her privileges or immunities, cannot deprive her of life, liberty, or property, cannot deny her equal protection under the law. Got that? She has equal rights to the baby. Her rights are never subordinate. Never.

So we have a problem. The mother does not wish to carry the child to term. It doesn’t matter why. It could be for any reason whatsoever. It does not have to be about her health. She can just say no. Yet the child claims a “right to life”. So we have a conflict of rights.

The “pro-life” crowd argues that the right to life supersedes any of the mother’s rights. What does that mean in practice?

The 13th amendment to the US constitution reads “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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Read that bolded section again. Then read it again, and again. This is where this conflict of rights gets resolved once and for all.

For the baby to live, the mother must be pressed into involuntary servitude for nine months, against her will, with great risk to her health, all for the sake of the baby. To allow the baby to live requires that the mother be enslaved for nine months to the baby’s needs.

If you are “pro-life”, you are arguing a pro-slavery position and slavery is expressly prohibited by the US constitution.

If this were not true, you could grab someone off the street and force them to be an organ donor for someone else. But that’s preposterous, isn’t it? The rights of the donor are equal to the rights of the sick person and the donor has the rights to say “No” to such a demand. We don’t argue that the sick person’s life outweighs the life of the donor, do we? No, they are equal even if the sick person dies and the donor always has the right to say “No” if they do not wish to donate an organ.

Yet for some reason, the “pro-life” crowd wants to allow slavery in the case of the unborn child, to allow the child to enslave the mother to its needs.

Restrictions on abortion, right up to the moment of birth, are unconstitutional for this very reason. The mother always has the right to change her mind and say “No.” She always has the right to say, “I’m not going to do this” at any point in the pregnancy, even the last week. She, as the one being pressed into involuntary servitude, holds the final say. The baby can only hope that the mother chooses to voluntarily choose to carry the baby to term. Neither the baby nor any legal surrogate for the baby demand otherwise, even the father.

The 13th and 14th Amendment to the US constitution guarantee equality under the law and forbid involuntary servitude. Therefore, the rights of the mother always, in every single case, no matter what, always override the rights of the child.

And if you argue otherwise, you are arguing in favor of slavery.

Are you sure you want to be “pro-life” and all the horror that implies? All the wreckage that implies to due process, equality under the law, and reinstatement of involuntary servitude?

As for me, I follow the constitution, and the right to abortion is the the right to freedom from involuntary servitude.

Deal with it.