The headline you just read is, in of itself, one of the more absurd headlines this author has ever had to write. Yet, when Democratic Georgia State Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick filed a “Testicular Bill of Rights” in retaliation to the Georgia legislature passage of a bill that outlawed abortion at the detection of a heartbeat it is perhaps the only headline that fits. In retaliation to the “heartbeat bill”, the rep filed the bill and posted her five-point plan on Twitter. She added the caveat, “You want some regulation of bodies and choice? Done!” Now, this is an opinion editorial and as such, I am free to take a little liberty in the expression of opinions. I’ll confess that calling this bill moral absurdity is, in fact, a personal opinion. Just one that is so close to discernible truth where objective journalism begins and pure opinion begins is hard to tell in this place. The bill does, however, show the wide and ever-growing gap in the basic understanding of human life between pro-choice and pro-life candidates. So in that, it is certainly worthy of exploration though one may chuckle along the way. Let’s discuss her five=point plan.
Permission for Medication
The first tenant of the Testicular Bill of Rights would require men to get permission from their sex partner before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication. Never mind that consent from one’s sex partner would always be needed should the purpose of acquiring such medicine ever be consummated. Consent is a legal and moral framework for all sexual relations. If sexual consent is not to be given by a man’s sex partner, then he might as well save himself a trip to the pharmacy and watch Netflix.
I’m assuming she was referring to various proposed legislation that would require a woman to seek permission from the father of an unborn child before she purchase the abortion pill. If her goal was to promote equality, then I support it. If erectile dysfunction came at the expense of their mutual child’s life, then permission the man must have. It would be a grievous act for the man to purchase medicine for ED knowing it would terminate he and his partner’s child without the partner’s consent. Since, at least to my knowledge, Viagra doesn’t do that then it seems no more mutually consensual than the purchase of Tylenol or a band-aid.
Permission for Medical Operations
The second tenant of her Testicular Bill of Rights would ban vasectomy procedures in Georgia and penalize doctors who perform them. Again, I assume the moral equivalency sought here is between proposed legislation that would ban abortions and penalize doctors who perform them. So yes, again we find common ground. For if through a vasectomy, a doctor were to reach into side the man’s reproductive organs and terminate a beating heart then they should be outlawed. As far as I can tell, terminating a beating heart and life is the only problem pro-life persons have with abortions and the only medical procedure known to medical science that they oppose.
Never mind that a vasectomy is a responsible medical procedure designed to prevent unwanted pregnancies without terminating a single life. To ban them would, I dare say, increase unplanned children and exacerbate the abortion debate. Medical science is quite clear when life begins and doctors performing vasectomies are on one side of that equation while those performing abortion are on the other. Sperm, as it turns out, need a partner before life is to begin if I am to remember my 8th grade health class rightly.
Outlaw Aggravated Assault
Here, myself and Representative Kendrick find our most common ground to date. She states that her Testicular Bill of Rights would make having sex without a condom an “aggravated assault” for men. Since again, I can only assume she is speaking of moral parity then we agree. If the insertion of a penis during intercourse were to make contact, grab, exit and kill the life inside the mother then what a terrible crime that would be. One could only imagine the horror of witnessing such an operation.
However, it is an unfortunate reality that having sex without a condom would most likely result in a sharp increase in unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. Again, the abortion debate is now exacerbated as we have more beating hearts and no way to remedy the situation. Yet, if sex without a condom did indeed accomplish the same medical outcome as steely medical equipment used during an abortion then I support Representative Kendrick.
The Conclusion of Moral Absurdity
Finally, we can wrap up this moral absurdity with her last two tenants. Number 4 would require men to begin paying child support when the woman is six weeks and one day pregnant per a paternity test required at the same time. You know what, that’s actually not a bad idea and I mean it. Pro-life persons have long held that the pregnancy is a life with mutual ownership and I see no reason the man shouldn’t start chipping in right away. Every married couple or serious relationship does so already, so why not target the deadbeat dads as soon as possible. With no sarcasm included, a genuine clap for you madam Representative on this one.
Her fifth tenant requires a 24-hour waiting period for men who which to purchase porn or sex toys in the state of Georgia. Again, if the delay in acquiring their porn or their sex toys caused one innocent life to be spared then, fellas, you got to wait. Then again, moral equivalence is not what Representative Kendrick is seeking at all. Rather, she is nominalized and trivialized human life in an attempt to allow its further destruction. That the pro-choice and pro-life camps are further apart than ever is obvious. Representative Kendrick doesn’t want to save a life or a right; Rather, she intends to mock them for political points.