no thanks, i like my balls and eventually i might want a kid. I could afford one, and make them a baller (no nuts given), but i'm so goddamn irresponsible it's a terrible idea for now.
While I oppose on the grounds of autonomy over one’s own body and that I don’t feel the state has a place in reproductive matters of adults, based on legal precedent I can’t see any objections constitutionally. Nothing in the constitution protects reproductive rights explicitly under current precedent which states that despite any discomfort, medical risks, or personal objections, that protecting fetuses is more important than these things.
Legal abortions and out of state abortions can’t be stopped and legal or otherwise, 100% of abortions start when a man ejaculates.
By removing this from all men except those showing the need and special conditions which ejaculation is deemed appropriate by the courts, we prevent so many abortions and miscarriages. The procedure is easily reversible, and there are lots of kids to adopt if one can’t get court approval to ejaculate.
Not in the Constitution, but clearly in the Declaration of Independence; ironically contradicting it from each side depending on your definition of life or the pursuit of happiness... At what point can a fetus survive? It sure as hell ain't 6 weeks... until it's viable it's literally akin to a parasite. But you've known my stance for a bit, so i apologize for the repeat,
Lmao. No worries. That is sort of the crux of the issue though as you say- what exactly is life defined in the constitution? The Supreme Court has upheld that such rights given to “life” do not extend to animals- which have higher capacity for thought and feeling and conducting their affairs than a zygote.
The fact a fetus needs a mother to survive becomes an interesting complication. The implication here being that the survival or one “life” takes precedent over whatever rights granted to will another possesses. So for example- the same logic would hold that one could not turn away a migrant at the border of their life were in danger. It would hold perhaps even that were an adult to demonstrate inability to care for oneself, it would be the constitutional responsibility of one in a position to do so to care for them regardless of imposition or will…
Legal abortions and out of state abortions can’t be stopped and legal or otherwise, 100% of abortions start when a man ejaculates.
By removing this from all men except those showing the need and special conditions which ejaculation is deemed appropriate by the courts, we prevent so many abortions and miscarriages. The procedure is easily reversible, and there are lots of kids to adopt if one can’t get court approval to ejaculate.
The fact a fetus needs a mother to survive becomes an interesting complication. The implication here being that the survival or one “life” takes precedent over whatever rights granted to will another possesses. So for example- the same logic would hold that one could not turn away a migrant at the border of their life were in danger. It would hold perhaps even that were an adult to demonstrate inability to care for oneself, it would be the constitutional responsibility of one in a position to do so to care for them regardless of imposition or will…