The Right to donuts?
I think we can all agree in a bipartisan fit of collegiality that each of us has the right to consume as many donuts as we want. "My body, my choice" isn't specific to women's health, so called. And the right to donuts is inarguably gender agnostic. Biological males cannot get pregnant, but anyone can eat a donut.
Don't confuse the non-constitutional right to donuts with those weakling constitutionally-based rights like gun ownership or freedom to practice your religion. No, any donut deniers are bigots who are against human health. This is why government must start providing each of us a stipend for buying donuts. Or free donuts. One shouldn't have to be refused donuts simply because they can't afford them. Donut shop owners are greedy capitalists but that means they'll sell donuts to anyone. I'm confident Big Donut will support our cause.
Photo credit: Max Pixel
I realize the government doesn't buy guns for anyone, or build worship centers, or pay to have everyone's opinions published. Those are merely rights derived from our humanity, God-given, and acknowledged by the Constitution. The right to donuts is based on the principle of doing whatever feels good and worrying about negative effects later, if ever. Some say that government must protect us from the consequences of unwise decisions, just as it has done at least since Roe v. Wade. By that logic, as with birth control and abortion, government must make available both donuts and bariatric surgery, or at least liposuction.
But it is crucially different that abortion kills a human life, whereas a donut has no known life-based traits. If we cannot agree on government financially supporting alleged rights that don't involve murder, we will never agree on those that do. The simplest path is for government to decline to provide funds to support your individual practice of your rights, constitutional or otherwise. Picking and choosing which supposed rights to fund is a legal minefield. You may pursue happiness, but your failures are your responsibility to deal with, not the government's.
There is more to be said about legalized murder of a human being, especially when there is no legal definition of what makes any of us human. My point is that even if a child were considered no more human than a donut, we shouldn't be paying the costs of other people's poor decisions.
"Planned Donuthood" anyone?