You called it a fundamental right. Look up the definition of a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not just something that are "made up." "Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law." So no, you can't just make something up and claim it is a fundamental right.
Your biggest gripe with what I said is that I chose to use the word "fundamental" instead of something else like "important" or "essential"?
This is a level of pedantry that others can only dream of, congratulations.
This entire thread is about a Supreme Court case that decided what "rights" are guaranteed to you by the Constitution. So you said "no I'm not talking about a Constitutional right, I am talking about a fundamental right that is guaranteed to you at birth. No I didn't actually mean fundamental right I meant important or essential right." Like, what are we doing here?
But fine. Let's go back to what you said. You said "Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it."
It has nothing to do with anything being consensual or not. It has nothing to do with anything being shameful or not. It is just the simple truth that there is no logical basis for the idea that you have the right to be free from the natural, scientific, and biologically-intended consequences of a specific action.
Maybe we should ban casts for broken arms now, since they allow the wearer to escape the "natural consequences" (malunion and permanent physical impairment) of a fractured bone.
Literally all medical science is about escaping the medical "consequences of our actions." This argument makes about as much sense as saying people should suffer the "natural consequences" of brain hemorrhages, pneumonia, and appendicitis. Goddamn, pro-lifers just do not think.
