Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the courts generally consider the context of the law, but focus on the text of the law. So Dope's argument falls flat, and my argument has merit. Again, IMO. (And I'm not trying to speak for Dope, so if he disagrees with my characterization of his position, I will defer on that point.)

You're not wrong. Well, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the substance of the 13th Amendment. But you're correct that you're making an interpretive argument, while Dope is not.

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.

Dope is arguing that the term....well, I don't know what's being argued there. The argument doesn't seem to be that these groups of people aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.," both because they clearly are and because the consequences of arguing they are not are astronomically bad (imagine if they were all immune from criminal prosecution!). The argument isn't that they were born in the U.S., either. So there's no interpretative argument there - nothing to hand to any court about why they can limit the application of the Amendment.