Petition for Amicus Brief: Banning Abortion is a violation of the 13th amendement.

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.

One of the ideas this was explicitly targeted at was the concept and practice of "chattel slavery", aka the full ownership of another persion as a commodity. Ownership over a person usually constitutes itself by forcibly taking ownership of that person's labour and the fruits thereof and/or forcibly taking ownership that person's body.

Due to the way that both aspects are inherently linked & subject to permanent influence by each other (as the impact of labour shapes the state of the body, and the state of the body in turn defines the labour capabilities), it must be concluded that forcibly taking ownership of another person's body against their will constitutes an act of enslavement in direct violation to section 1of the 13th amendement.

A fetus of a pregnant woman not only occupies & morphes the host's uterus, it also connects itself directly to the host's blood stream, siphoning & processing nutrients aswell as injecting substances back into the hosting blood stream without any control of the host herself.

Furthermore, the transformations done by the fetus to organs it comes in direct contact with trigger massive changes to the hormonal system of the host, which in term start a wide variety of transformative processes all across the host body completely outside of the host's control and solely to serve the fetus.

To argue, that said fetus possesses personhood only worsens the position for banning abortions, as that directly implies the transfer of ownership and control over all the host's body parts affected to another person without any consent requirement by the host.

The argument that protecting the survival of the fetus trumps any rights of the host to her own body is highly problematic. Should a person be forced to accept rape if defending themselves means harming the rapist? Because an act of self-defense that has any chance of being effective under such circumstance generally will be. Generally, rape has a similar pattern of direct physical impact except for a far shorter timespan & to a significantly lesser severity (psychological traumata cause by both are too large of a topic for me to be able to comparatively discuss them here, but their impact should be noted).

To set the standard that a stranger's survival nullifies a person's right to their own body has far reaching implications that go against broadly understood concepts of personal rights. For example, it would mean that the government has a duty to force kidney donations from compatible potential "donors" to save the life of the recepients in complete disregard of the "donor"'s consent. this would however run afowl of any common understanding of any personal rights retained to one's own body.

The abduction and harvesting for organs is an undeniably and thoroughly evil and unethical practice than can be observed in the criminal underworld on some place of the planet. It's practices run highly parallel to those that were used to abduct and enslave people for sale into chattel slavery in almost any way, the primary distinction being that the "product" is now sold in parts instead of a singular piece. If organ transplantations would have been medically viable during the times in which chattel slavery was both common and lawful in the US, there can be no doubt that chattel slave would have been harvested regularly for such express purpose.

The question of abortions is not in fact about a "right to kill", but about a right to remove the nonconsensual trespasser & thereby a right to restore the host's control over their own body. The death of the fetus this generally results in might be tragic, but is utimately the result of a purely self-defense action that is strictly necessitated to defend oneself.

To deny a person the basic rights to self-defense & force them to suffer lasting bodily harm for the sole purpose of avoiding an infringing trespasser to be harmed is a complete inversion of the responsibility concepts that are applied to any other right. The principle of non-aggression gets completely inverted to a principle of non-defense, in which the initiating act of aggression is not just allowed but expressly protected under maximum force to continue as long as it wants to.

The consquences of this inversion that intends to declare basic self-defense as homicide are immeasurably. In logical consequence it must be followed that if one were to refuse to host a homeless person in their house & said homeless person died in a snowstorm due to lack of shelter briefly after, the hosting person would be criminally responisble for homicide. If refusal to scraifice essential personal rights to save a stranger's life from threats you didn't cause constitutes homicide, there is no end to this in sight.

The exception stated in section 1 could in theory leave room for a "due process conviction to forced preganncy", however the 8th amendement clearly states (emphasis mine):

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

A forced pregnancy as a punitive measure should clearly fall into the category of cruel and unusual punishment.

In summary, for the reasons laid out in the beginning, any such practice that forcibly transfers control and ownership of a person's own body to a different person - be it via forced pregancy, organ theft or rape - severely violates the rights assured to the individual by the 13th amendement.

I'm not a law person & it's just a rough draft in need of a lot of polishing, but I believe that this line of argumentdoes have merit.