"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[JamesDillon]

It's interesting that the people who don't like my choice of words dance around the phrase "involuntary", and attempt to equate something physically imposed with something voluntary, time and time again.

jj,

That's because your proposed distinction doesn't make any sense, and you have yet to defend it in a way that does. Restrictions on personal autonomy imposed by law are always involuntary. Moreover, there are always personal costs associated with complying with the law. This does not give rise to a state of "slavery" in any legitimate sense of the word. If abortion were illegal, a woman would be "involuntarily" forced to carry a child to term, and to accept certain costs accompanying that condition. Every April 15, I am involuntarily forced to submit a substantial portion of my income to the government. In both cases, the law limits autonomy, and compels individuals to accept certain costs. Yes, the costs are somewhat different, but in neither case can the person subject to those costs be called in any meaningful sense a "slave."

The law places limits on personal choice. We do not live in a state of nature in which everyone is permitted to act in any way he or she pleases-- and we are all better off because of that. This does not make us slaves of each other or of the state, and the suggestion that it does is demeaning to the dignity of those human beings who in centuries past and the present day have endured the suffering of real slavery.

 

[jj]

Restrictions on personal autonomy imposed by law are always involuntary.

So, you argue that having to undergo physical discomfort, potential injury, pain, suffering, physical inconvenience is the SAME as having to not steal a car?

Sorry. No. It's that simple. Your entire argument is based on a completely ridicluous line of thinking that equates a concious decision not to steal a car with having to take up the risk of death by kidney failure.

No, they are not the same. This is called "prima facie". This is a fact that is evident on the surface.

You are still replying to your nonsensical straw man, rather than to anything I've argued. You appear incapable of arguing the subject at hand, and wish, rather, to attempt to create a position for me that you CAN attack.

When you learn how to actually make an argument, come back.

 

[Alliebubs]

So, you argue that having to undergo physical discomfort, potential injury, pain, suffering, physical inconvenience is the SAME as having to not steal a car?

Sorry. No. It's that simple. Your entire argument is based on a completely ridicluous line of thinking that equates a concious decision not to steal a car with having to take up the risk of death by kidney failure.

No, they are not the same. This is called "prima facie". This is a fact that is evident on the surface.

You are still replying to your nonsensical straw man, rather than to anything I've argued. You appear incapable of arguing the subject at hand, and wish, rather, to attempt to create a position for me that you CAN attack.

When you learn how to actually make an argument, come back.

He has been making the argument. I dare say he's made quite a valid argument that just might refute yours rather deftly. Becoming belligerent isn't necessarily the right way to prove your point. Further, resorting to ad hominem attacks/language/postings just makes your case not as credible, since you had to respond on a viceral level.

 

[jj]

He has been making the argument. I dare say he's made quite a valid argument that just might refute yours rather deftly.

Try again, he's attacked a position I have never presented, and has not in any fashion whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, even remotely addressed the same issues.

You can evade the argument all you want, perhaps you're blind to it, but if you are, you are asserting ownership over somebody else. It really is that simple.

 

[JamesDillon]

jj,

I am trying very hard to understand your line of thinking here, but you are not making it easy.

You assert that a law prohibiting abortion would put a pregnant woman in a state of slavery, because, as best as I can understand your argument, such a law would preclude the woman's right to exercise personal choice and autonomy over her body. My response to that argument has consistently been that the law places all sorts of restrictions on the exercise of personal liberty and autonomy, but that fact does not suggest that we are all "slaves" in any real sense.

You then assert that I am misrepresenting your position, and that the operative distinction is between "conscious" and "involuntary" choices. I still don't understand the significance of this distinction. Are you arguing that a pregant woman's condition is purely involuntary? This is not generally the case (let's put aside the small minority of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest for the moment, which I concede raise special issues). Moreover, whether my decision not to break the law is "conscious" or not, it's still not "voluntary" in the sense that I could legally have done otherwise. I honestly do not understand how the multitude of situations in which our behavior is constrained by the law all the time are "voluntary" choices, but a pregnant woman's decision not to have an illegal abortion is "involuntary."

You then make the following argument:

So, you argue that having to undergo physical discomfort, potential injury, pain, suffering, physical inconvenience is the SAME as having to not steal a car?

What does this have to do with the voluntary or involuntary nature of the respective legal obligations? Yes, a law prohibiting abortion in some sense places a greater obligation on the woman subject to it than does a law prohibiting me from stealing your car. But in both instances, compliance with the law is equally compulsory-- i.e., involuntary.

Your observation about the respective weight of obligation seems more suited to an argument that prohibition of abortion simply goes too far in infringing upon a pregnant woman's autonomy interest over her own body. I agree fully with that argument; however, I don't think you can get from there to the conclusion that a legal prohibition of abortion makes the pregnant woman a slave.

You appear incapable of arguing the subject at hand, and wish, rather, to attempt to create a position for me that you CAN attack.

Can you explain to me what the "subject at hand" is, and how I am not addressing it?

When you learn how to actually make an argument, come back.

My understanding up to this point has always been that one foundational premise of valid argumentation is that it refrains from ad hominem attacks. You seem to disagree in that regard.

 

[Alliebubs]

Try again, he's attacked a position I have never presented, and has not in any fashion whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, even remotely addressed the same issues.

You can evade the argument all you want, perhaps you're blind to it, but if you are, you are asserting ownership over somebody else. It really is that simple.

No one is evading the argument. I am not blind to it. And, no, it's not that simple.

He, among others, has brought counterexamples to the table, which gave me, at least, something to think about. I have also considered your position. Really. Bringing both together, and comparing which argument makes the most sense and logic, I concur with JamesDillon. By calling carrying a baby to term "slavery" is almost equal to bringing in Nazis into the conversation (Godwin's Law... I know, I know. Just brought it up to make a point). And it not only undermines the suffering of those truly in the bonds of slavery, but amplifies and inflames your argument to a level that, quite frankly, is not even in the same vicinity as the other. Women *have the choice*. Speaking as a woman (perhaps you didn't mean to imply this, or perhaps I misunderstood, but you made it seem like I'm in favour of scaling back women's rights, or something), the law does recognise the rights of women to choose. In the hypothetical that abortion is illegal, the slavery label still doesn't hold for me, since, for example, the mother decides to keep it, (and I bring it back to one of my original questions), how is one situation (the gestation) slavery, and the other (the rearing/taking care) isn't?

 

[jj]

You assert that a law prohibiting abortion would put a pregnant woman in a state of slavery, because, as best as I can understand your argument, such a law would preclude the woman's right to exercise personal choice and autonomy over her body.

It requires the woman to accept substantial risk and physical (and mental) discomfort.

Not stealing a car does no such thing.

 

[Dunstan]

And in regards to all those examples you posted, do you have any specific situations you could reference, just so I, and others, could read and understand your point of view a little better?

I'm not the original poster, but:

1) A lower court in Pennsylvania ordered a sperm donor to pay child support. Not sure if or how the Penn. Supreme Court has ruled yet.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507736.stm

2) "Is the child's father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? We conclude he is liable for child support." County of San Luis Obispo, 50 Cal.App.4th 942 (1996). The boy was 15, the woman 34. The opinion cites similar decisions from Kansas (13-year-old boy), Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New York.

3) Can't help with the boyfriend "holding up" an abortion (not sure what that means anyway). But I can point you to Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 179 Cal.App.3d 386 (1986), where a sperm donor successfully asserted his paternal rights. (There was a state law that prevents this, as well as donors from being sued for child support, but the insemination has to be done by a doctor. These folks did a "do it yourself" private arrangement. Yeah, wouldn't want a check with a lawyer before doing that. If it was good enough for Sam and Rebecca on "Cheers"....)

4) There's lots of cases of men being forced to pay child support even after DNA proves they weren't the father. In some instances, he may not even have had sex with her! He only had to be identified as the alleged father with an incorrect address, and he never gets the court papers and is stuck with a default judgment he can't contest.

From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-02-paternity-usat_x.htm
"Many unwed fathers paying child support have never admitted paternity. A 1996 federal welfare law requires a woman to name a father — no questions asked — when she applies for public assistance. A court summons can be mailed to the man's last known address. Many men don't get the notice. The result: The paychecks of 527,224 men in California, for example, are being docked under "default" judgments of paternity that can't be contested after six months."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

jj,

I am trying very hard to understand your line of thinking here, but you are not making it easy.

You assert that a law prohibiting abortion would put a pregnant woman in a state of slavery, because, as best as I can understand your argument, such a law would preclude the woman's right to exercise personal choice and autonomy over her body. My response to that argument has consistently been that the law places all sorts of restrictions on the exercise of personal liberty and autonomy, but that fact does not suggest that we are all "slaves" in any real sense.

The law is not in the habit of forcing people to perform major, life-threatening sacrifices on behalf of specific other people because of conditions which obtain accidentally, except in the case of pregnancy. There is no precedent I am aware of elsewhere in first world law for such a requirement.

Now you could, I suppose, argue that pregnancy is just special somehow, but it would be a very hard argument to sustain. There are lots of conceivable situations in which one person's life depends on the actions of another but the law does not, in general, force us to make great sacrifices to save others. You could argue that the fetus and the mother have some kind of special moral relationship, but I don't think you could do so consistently without begging the question.

You then assert that I am misrepresenting your position, and that the operative distinction is between "conscious" and "involuntary" choices. I still don't understand the significance of this distinction. Are you arguing that a pregant woman's condition is purely involuntary? This is not generally the case (let's put aside the small minority of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest for the moment, which I concede raise special issues).

I wouldn't try to run an argument on the basis that pregnancy is partially voluntary. Pregnancy is a risk of sex in the same way that getting run over is a risk of crossing the road, but we don't deny people medical assistance just because they crossed a road and "should have known" that sometimes people get hit by cars when doing so.

Moreover, whether my decision not to break the law is "conscious" or not, it's still not "voluntary" in the sense that I could legally have done otherwise. I honestly do not understand how the multitude of situations in which our behavior is constrained by the law all the time are "voluntary" choices, but a pregnant woman's decision not to have an illegal abortion is "involuntary."

I'll put it this way: If you were reasonably likely to be implanted with a life-threatening growth due to accident or malice, and you were likely to be denied medical care because you knew in advance that the implantation was possible, you would see why it is a situation unlike paying taxes.

Your observation about the respective weight of obligation seems more suited to an argument that prohibition of abortion simply goes too far in infringing upon a pregnant woman's autonomy interest over her own body. I agree fully with that argument; however, I don't think you can get from there to the conclusion that a legal prohibition of abortion makes the pregnant woman a slave.

It depends what you mean by slave. It is certainly not equivalent to 100%, 24-hour slavery with no free will. It is a lot more like slavery than anything else we inflict on civilians as a result of accidental conditions. I think "slave" overstates the case a little, but not outrageously.

 

[jj]

In the hypothetical that abortion is illegal, the slavery label still doesn't hold for me, since, for example, the mother decides to keep it, (and I bring it back to one of my original questions), how is one situation (the gestation) slavery, and the other (the rearing/taking care) isn't?

Once again, you voluntarily decide to raise the child. This is voluntary. The law did not tell you you had to keep the child.

Incubating the fetus, if abortion is illegal, is not voluntary. The law specifically said you had to risk life, comfort, health, and well-being for the fetus.

I have no idea why it's so hard to see something this plainly obvious. Dillon started with a truly ridiculous straw man, claimed it was my position, and has been going at his own straw man ever since. Ergo, there's no point in me arguing with him. His points are not telling, they are irrelevant. His issues are not mine, they are his. His refutation is of his own straw man. He is arguing with himself, and including me only as the ostensible butt of his straw man.

Why he's chosen to involve me in his assault on his own straw man, I simply don't know. Why you've chosen to join in, I don't know either. Do you?

 

[Alliebubs]

Once again, you voluntarily decide to raise the child. This is voluntary. The law did not tell you you had to keep the child.

Incubating the fetus, if abortion is illegal, is not voluntary. The law specifically said you had to risk life, comfort, health, and well-being for the fetus.

I have no idea why it's so hard to see something this plainly obvious. Dillon started with a truly ridiculous straw man, claimed it was my position, and has been going at his own straw man ever since. Ergo, there's no point in me arguing with him. His points are not telling, they are irrelevant. His issues are not mine, they are his. His refutation is of his own straw man. He is arguing with himself, and including me only as the ostensible butt of his straw man.

Why he's chosen to involve me in his assault on his own straw man, I simply don't know. Why you've chosen to join in, I don't know either. Do you?

It's quite simple. His argument makes the most sense. That's the only reason why I've "joined" his line of thinking. Apparently, we have to agree to disagree. Dunstan has illustrated specific examples for the situations you've put forth, and while I can concede that special exceptions must be taken into account, they don't necessarily have anything to do with your argument that raising a child is voluntary. Abandonment is against the law, right? Clearly, we can't come to a consensus on this; JamesDillon has not made you out to be the bad guy here. Really. He's just debating your perspective. No one is attacking you personally. This is about the issue before us. Don't mistake my asking questions and attacking your position as some sort of personal vendetta.

Anyway, agree to disagree then? I don't think I can illuminate my opinion any more than I have.

 

[JamesDillon]

The law is not in the habit of forcing people to perform major, life-threatening sacrifices on behalf of specific other people because of conditions which obtain accidentally, except in the case of pregnancy. There is no precedent I am aware of elsewhere in first world law for such a requirement.

Now you could, I suppose, argue that pregnancy is just special somehow, but it would be a very hard argument to sustain. There are lots of conceivable situations in which one person's life depends on the actions of another but the law does not, in general, force us to make great sacrifices to save others. You could argue that the fetus and the mother have some kind of special moral relationship, but I don't think you could do so consistently without begging the question.

Kevin,

I don't disagree with this, or most of anything else you've said here. I do, in fact, think that anti-abortion laws go too far in their infringement on a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body, and equally importantly, to make decisions about whether to start a family. Certainly the restriction of liberty imposed by such a law is substantially greater than that imposed by laws requiring citizens to pay taxes; I can't think of a law that goes as far in restricting personal liberty as an anti-abortion law does, either. (Although it is important to note that there are arguably two persons with interests in a pregnancy, the mother and the fetus, which makes pregnancy and abortion something of a special case to which no good analogies can be drawn. Personally I favor permitting abortion in most circumstances, but I think that a reasonable argument can be made in good faith for the other side as well).

But the debate that jj and I are having is not whether laws prohibiting abortion are a good idea-- we both agree that they are not. What we're arguing about is whether a law prohibiting abortion would be such a gross invasion of the woman's liberty that we would be justified in calling it a condition of slavery. This proposition I find to be a gross hyperbole, which disconnects the rhetoric of the abortion debate from reality while cheapening the suffering of the human beings who have been subjected to the actual, dehumanizing experience of slavery.

Which leads me to the one part of your post with which I do slightly disagree:

It depends what you mean by slave. It is certainly not equivalent to 100%, 24-hour slavery with no free will. It is a lot more like slavery than anything else we inflict on civilians as a result of accidental conditions. I think "slave" overstates the case a little, but not outrageously.

First of all, I don't think it's true that being forced to carry a child to term is more like slavery than anything else we inflict on civilians as a result of accidental conditions-- what about criminal imprisonment? Prisoners are subject to conditions that are probably most analogous to slavery. Of course you may object that prison terms are not inflicted due to "accidental" conditions, to which I have two responses. First, again, (except in cases of rape), pregnancy is not an entirely "accidental" condition, either. Precautions may fail, of course, but it's not the case that a woman just wakes up pregnant one day without having taken any affirmative steps leading to that condition. (Please note that I am not making any implication of moral blameworthiness here-- as I've said in other posts in this thread, I think that notions of moral desert or blameworthiness often arise in these conversations, but are really not helpful to the discussion.) Secondly, people can and do serve prison terms for truly accidental situations-- criminally negligent homicide is a felony, as are any number of other crimes that may be committed unintentionally.

Secondly, and more importantly, I disagree with you in that I think the suggestion that a pregnant woman who is prevented from having an abortion is a "slave" is, in fact, an outrageous overstatement, largely for the reasons I have discussed in this post and elsewhere. There is simply no comparison between a human being who is forced to live his or her entire life as the legal property of another, and a woman to is "forced" by law to endure the consequences of her own actions for a period of months. This is the sort of outlandish and unreasonable rhetorical exaggeration that causes arguments about abortion to become so emotionally inflamed, thereby making reasonable compromise all the more difficult to reach. As someone on the same side of the abortion question as jj, I find his slavery analogy utterly irresponsible and unfounded.

I have no idea why it's so hard to see something this plainly obvious. Dillon started with a truly ridiculous straw man, claimed it was my position, and has been going at his own straw man ever since. Ergo, there's no point in me arguing with him. His points are not telling, they are irrelevant. His issues are not mine, they are his. His refutation is of his own straw man. He is arguing with himself, and including me only as the ostensible butt of his straw man.

jj,

You have made this claim several times already, and several times I have entreated to you articulate your position and respond to my specific objections. Over and over again you do nothing but cry "straw man!," while never explaining precisely how I am mischaracterizing your view or attempting to correct my understanding of it. Once again, I ask you to respond to the questions and specific objections in my previous posts. Simply crying "straw man" neither enlightens us as to your view nor rebuts my criticisms of it.

 

[jj]

Dunstan has illustrated specific examples for the situations you've put forth, and while I can concede that special exceptions must be taken into account, they don't necessarily have anything to do with your argument that raising a child is voluntary. Abandonment is against the law, right?

You have heard of adoption, haven't you? It's much more optional than abortion in South Dakota at the minute.

You seem to be determined to raise confused issue after confused issue. It is entirely voluntary for mom to take care of a child. She can give the child up to adoption. You are aware of that aren't you?

Dad, on the other hand, can be held responsible for support even if mom puts the child up for adoption. Yes, that does mean dad should have (but may not have, depending on state) had the option to care for the child himself. Mom, on the other hand, gets to walk from the responsibility. Dad doesn't.

That's a different issue, but the heart of the inequity that started this thread.

 

[jj]

First of all, I don't think it's true that being forced to carry a child to term is more like slavery than anything else we inflict on civilians as a result of accidental conditions-- what about criminal imprisonment?

Imprisonment is 'accidental'?

You would appear to be equating becoming pregnant with committing a crime. Was that your intent?

If not, you are simply ignoring the obvious, prima-facie issue that the criminal had the option not to commit a crime.

You argue that mom, in a no-abortion state, has the option to discontinue a pregnancy?

Once again, your rhetoric is malformed, and equates things that are difference upon simple inspection, let alone when examined in detail.

 

[JamesDillon]

jj,
Do you even read my posts, or just skim through them for catch phrases on which to base your non-sequitur responses?

Imprisonment is 'accidental'?

No, imprisonment is not accidental. I did not say that imprisonment is accidental. I said that 1) Imprisonment more closely approxomates conditions of slavery than pregnancy does, and 2) People may be imprisoned for accidental acts, such as criminally negligent homicide. In fact, the Model Penal Code identifies five levels of criminal intent-- strict liability, negligence, recklessness, knowledge, and intent. Only the last two of those five require the criminal to have acted in a non-accidental manner, and there are crimes involving prison time associated with each one of the five mental states.

You would appear to be equating becoming pregnant with committing a crime. Was that your intent?

What I said was, becoming pregnant is no more accidental than committing a criminally negligent act is. This was in response to Kevin's suggestion that forcing a pregnant woman to bear her child is the closest thing to slavery that would exist in the modern world. My response, which is really tangential to what you and I have been discussing, is that criminal imprisonment is actually the closest parallel to slavery that exists today.

In case you missed it, I also said, when discussing the fact that a pregnant woman has taken some affirmative steps to arrive at her condition, that:

(Please note that I am not making any implication of moral blameworthiness here-- as I've said in other posts in this thread, I think that notions of moral desert or blameworthiness often arise in these conversations, but are really not helpful to the discussion.)

Therefore, your suggestion that I am "equating" pregnancy with criminal activity is entirely unwarranted.

If not, you are simply ignoring the obvious, prima-facie issue that the criminal had the option not to commit a crime.

1. This word you keep using-- I do not think it means what you seem to think it means.

2. No, once again (for the third time now, in fact), some criminal acts are based on strict liability, negligence, or recklessness. A person who commits these crimes does not "intend" to do so, any more than a woman who has sex while on the pill and with a condom intends to get pregnant. Sometimes ***** happens.

You argue that mom, in a no-abortion state, has the option to discontinue a pregnancy?

I neither argued that, nor do I see what relevance it has.

Once again, your rhetoric is malformed, and equates things that are difference upon simple inspection, let alone when examined in detail.

Since you barely seem to have even read my post, I can't see how you can claim to have examined it "in detail."


I also note that your entire response here centers on the tangential discussion I had with Kevin about whether criminal imprisonment or pregnancy is a closer comparison to slavery. You have yet to respond to the comments I made regarding your position in my last post, or in the several previous posts.


Edit: From your response to Alliebubs:

Dad, on the other hand, can be held responsible for support even if mom puts the child up for adoption. Yes, that does mean dad should have (but may not have, depending on state) had the option to care for the child himself. Mom, on the other hand, gets to walk from the responsibility. Dad doesn't.

My understanding has always been that adoption ends the parental duties of both parents. Can you cite an instance in which a child has been adopted, but the biological father has been held liable for continuing support payments?

 

[Alliebubs]

You have heard of adoption, haven't you? It's much more optional than abortion in South Dakota at the minute.

You seem to be determined to raise confused issue after confused issue. It is entirely voluntary for mom to take care of a child. She can give the child up to adoption. You are aware of that aren't you?

jj,

I don't agree, and have tried to diffuse this situation by offering a way in which we drop this matter, because there is no resolution. Of course I've heard of adoption. To imply that I haven't makes it seem like you're being quite condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intent. If I must reiterate my point, once she decides that to keep it, she is legally obligated to care for it the best way possible. As I understand it, adoption ends and ceases both the mother and father's obligation to the child in question. Your assertion that:

Dad, on the other hand, can be held responsible for support even if mom puts the child up for adoption. Yes, that does mean dad should have (but may not have, depending on state) had the option to care for the child himself. Mom, on the other hand, gets to walk from the responsibility. Dad doesn't.

doesn't ring true, really, since, once again, I believe, if both consent, both parents can, indeed, walk away.

If I've misunderstood this, please let me know.

 

[jj]

If I must reiterate my point, once she decides that to keep it, she is legally obligated to care for it the best way possible.

Yes, but she takes on that responsibility voluntarily. She can put the child up for adoption.

The whole point is "once she decides". In the illegal abortion case, there is no choice.

 

[jj]

What I said was, becoming pregnant is no more accidental than committing a criminally negligent act is.

Since that would seem obviously unsupportable, in that you would be equating the breaking of a condom with leaving a rake out with the tines up.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

First of all, I don't think it's true that being forced to carry a child to term is more like slavery than anything else we inflict on civilians as a result of accidental conditions-- what about criminal imprisonment? Prisoners are subject to conditions that are probably most analogous to slavery. Of course you may object that prison terms are not inflicted due to "accidental" conditions, to which I have two responses. First, again, (except in cases of rape), pregnancy is not an entirely "accidental" condition, either. Precautions may fail, of course, but it's not the case that a woman just wakes up pregnant one day without having taken any affirmative steps leading to that condition. (Please note that I am not making any implication of moral blameworthiness here-- as I've said in other posts in this thread, I think that notions of moral desert or blameworthiness often arise in these conversations, but are really not helpful to the discussion.)

As I said earlier getting run over is not an accidental condition either in that sense. Usually you have to have done something silly like leave the house, knowing that there were cars about, to get run over.

Secondly, people can and do serve prison terms for truly accidental situations-- criminally negligent homicide is a felony, as are any number of other crimes that may be committed unintentionally.

You can't be criminally negligent by accident. The only accident involved is someone happening to walk by at just the wrong time (or whatever) to get killed by your negligent behaviour.

Similarly while you can commit a crime unintentionally I can't think of any plausible scenarios where you accidentally commit a crime while just going about your normal, legitimate business.

Most importantly, of course, criminal punishment is reserved for antisocial and/or criminal behaviour. Not for getting pregnant.

 

[LW]

It is a lot more like slavery than anything else we inflict on civilians as a result of accidental conditions. I think "slave" overstates the case a little, but not outrageously.

I live in a country where there is a mandatory public service for men (either military or civilian). So, by the accidental condition that I happened to be born male, I had to serve either 8-11 months in the military (did 9.5) or 13 months in civilian service.

That is more like slavery than pregnancy. (Though I wouldn't go as far as call it 'slavery' either).