This is not about climate change.
When a branch of a state legislature passed a law that a woman must wait 48 hours for an abortion, I pondered.
The better spirit of such a law is to prompt careful reflection before making a weighty decision, while the lesser spirit of the law is a demeaning dismissal of a woman's ability to make her own weighty decisions, and specifically discounts the discernment process she may have had in the previous 48 hours before she first sought medical assistance.
So let's take the better spirit of the law, plus the 48 hour rule, and see how that applies to men under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. Doesn't equal protection infer equal prosecution? Maybe that tough nut about equality has yet to be fully resolved, but for the moment let's assume the equality is in both protection and prosecution.
The last moment at which a man has direct personal control over whether or not conception might take place is in the minutes before his semen ejaculates in or near a vagina, is it not?
So if the 48 hour law were equally applied, a man would have to seek permission for an act of sex and wait 48 hours before the procedure could be accomplished. Would not this give a potential fetus equal protection from irresponsible decisions by a father as well as by a mother?
Suppose a husband thinks of sex at 9 pm Friday, and must wait until after 9 pm Sunday to consummate his intention. Consider the anticipation, the overtures, the limited foreplay, during the 48 hours of waiting, and perhaps, it might achieve the intended purpose of the 48 hour rule to prompt careful reflection before taking action.
Moreover, if a man sought the services of a prostitute, would not the 48 hour rule apply in that relationship as well?
Would any man failing to follow the 48 hour rule be judged equally with women?
File this under humor, in case anyone didn't get the joke, at least taken in the whole, if not in part.