You're arguing that the term "involuntary servitude" can be interpreted to include the condition of an unwanted pregnancy, and therefore is prohibited by the 13th Amendment.

I don't want to hijack here, but I did want to make my argument clear so as to contrast his argument on the 14th. There are a few conditionals in mine. If the fetus is not a "human person", then there is nothing to discuss. Abortion is allowed. My point is that if the fetus is adjudicated to be a person -as many assert-, then the 13th applies because you then have one person forcing another into servitude against their will (if it's unwanted). That, then, becomes relevant territory for the 13th.

Dope isn't arguing terms at all, as near as I can tell. He's arguing context of the original law (amendment), and then appealing to not-law of "why should they benefit from misbehavior".

Which does have some precedent (i.e. benefits from misbehavior). I believe if you commit a crime, you forfeit all benefit derived from that crime. But, as you say, the child born here committed no crime. Maybe the parents did, but the child did not. So, that would not apply. As you said. And I don't believe context is relevant in law, just the text (or "letter of the law").