Publicly accepted modern slavery

All Forum Rules Still Apply!
Contentious issues go here.

Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby Kent » Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:00 pm

From my own brief reading, in law there is something called Jus Abutendi, meaning (I think) that you have to own something in order to have the right to destroy (or make any use of) it. But is not abortion the intended destruction of a human being? Therefore, procuring an abortion would seem to mean an implicit claim of ownership of the (aborted) human being. But is not this claim of ownership of a human being the very definition of slavery? If so, then why is not abortion forbidden by the 13th Amendment?
Kent Wendler
User avatar
Kent
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:16 pm

slightly revised version

Postby Kent » Sun May 12, 2019 9:17 pm

Recently in my reading I came across a legal term called Jus Abutendi, meaning (I think) that you have to own something in order to have the right to make any use of it, including to destroy it. But is not abortion the intended destruction of a human being? Therefore, procuring an abortion would seem to mean an implicit claim of ownership of the (aborted) human being. But is not this claim of ownership of a human being the very definition of slavery? If so, then why is not abortion forbidden by the 13th Amendment?
Kent Wendler
User avatar
Kent
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:16 pm

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby lasaxman » Thu May 16, 2019 1:46 am

Wouldn't that legal principle apply to all killing, including war and state executions? Even self-defense?
David L (CA)
User avatar
lasaxman
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:45 pm
Location: So California

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby Kent » Thu May 16, 2019 5:50 pm

In most of those cases the state, not the person, is acting, so I do not think so. Actual (not imagined) self-defense is a well-recognized but whether it is licit depends of the individual circumstance. Those instances you mention regarding state actions generally should be intended for defense of the state. (If, Heaven forfend, I ever have to serve on a capitol case jury, my opinion on whether the convicted defendant should be executed would depend on whether or not, in my best judgment, society can be permanently protected from future harm from the criminal. It is clear that there are some for which even a "supermax" prison is insufficient.)

Clearly, though, the logic does extend to things like abortifacient "contraceptives", in vitro techniques, embryo banks, etc.
Kent Wendler
User avatar
Kent
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:16 pm

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby Kent » Tue May 21, 2019 7:20 pm

Published today, here.
Kent Wendler
User avatar
Kent
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:16 pm

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby lasaxman » Fri May 24, 2019 3:13 am

Kent,

States can not practice slavery?
David L (CA)
User avatar
lasaxman
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:45 pm
Location: So California

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby Kent » Fri May 24, 2019 5:25 pm

13th Amendment
Amendment XIII
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.


Pretty much says it all, and I have never heard of any human embryo or fetus being convicted of a crime.
Kent Wendler
User avatar
Kent
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:16 pm

Posted as a response to a First Things article

Postby Kent » Mon May 27, 2019 12:45 pm

(An extended version, article here.)

Recently in my reading I came across a legal term called "jus abutendi" meaning (I think) that you have to own something in order to have the right to make any use of it, including to destroy it. But is not abortion the intended destruction of a human being? Therefore, procuring an abortion would seem to mean an implicit claim of ownership of the (aborted) human being. But is not this claim of ownership of a human being the very definition of slavery? If so, then why is not abortion forbidden by the 13th Amendment?

Now I realize that the radical pro-aborts simply ignore this argument - they may even be invincibly ignorant - but it is, I believe, a somewhat novel conclusion that the courts have not considered.

More immediately, I think it might be useful if "slavery" were more commonly associated with abortion - a slavery not intended for involuntary servitude but strictly for the purpose of killing a human being who is deemed to be inconvenient. A strictly homicidal form of slavery.

If the respondent ventures the idea that the fetus or embryo is not a human being, then they should be asked when did they become a human. Are they even "human" yet? And more importantly how did they attain the right to determine the presence or absence of humanity - does someone else thereby have the "right" to declare that they aren't human, and can therefore be killed for some perceived "need"?
Kent Wendler
User avatar
Kent
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:16 pm

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby lasaxman » Wed May 29, 2019 3:47 pm

Kent wrote:
13th Amendment
Amendment XIII
Section 1.


Pretty much says it all, and I have never heard of any human embryo or fetus being convicted of a crime.

Well, of course that only applies within the U.S. My question was about states in general.
David L (CA)
User avatar
lasaxman
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:45 pm
Location: So California

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby Kent » Thu May 30, 2019 9:20 pm

Since you are talking about foreign nations, clearly the 13th Amendment does not apply - only the "court" of public/international opinion. My impression is that there are few or no nations who practice explicit slavery - although they may implicitly be allowing it.

But I was not advocating this for foreign "consumption" although non-US persons should feel free to use and adapt it for their purposes.

So instead I would like to call your attention to the last two paragraphs in the previous response.

In addition I point out that nearly every abortion is performed because those procuring it perceive a personal need which they consider as more important than the life of the human being to be aborted. These people really have no basis to any claim of moral superiority over the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVey or Ted Bundy.

Furthermore I fearfully expect some doubtfully principled defense lawyer in the future to attempt to have laws against murder constitutionally invalidated because they deny "equal protection" to the defendant compared to the aborters.
Kent Wendler
User avatar
Kent
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:16 pm

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby lasaxman » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:00 pm

Kent wrote:Since you are talking about foreign nations...


Neither abortion nor slavery are respecters of national boundaries.
David L (CA)
User avatar
lasaxman
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:45 pm
Location: So California

Re: Publicly accepted modern slavery

Postby Kent » Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:05 pm

Sad, isn't it. And not even the boundaries of Hell...
Kent Wendler
User avatar
Kent
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:16 pm


Return to Lion's Den

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron