Introduction:
“No uterus, no opinion”, is just one of the many slogans and idioms exclaimed at abortion rallies by activists and their supporters; shouting at the top of their overworked lungs as a two-fold means to both silence and intimidate their opponents, as well as, rally their cohorts to join them in the “fight” to secure their [presumed] “right” to kill as many unborn children as they wish, without restriction or consequence.
The Target
It seems easy enough to surmise that this particular slogan is targeted at those opponents of abortion who didn’t have the good sense and foresight to be born with a vagina. Had they been more fortunate in their birth, they would’ve been granted the unimpeachable ability to speak their mind on this matter, and what’s more, be heard. This is a women’s issue, you see, and we simply can’t have men offering their two cents on the matter, elsewise we would only be empowering the “patriarchy” to trample over “women’s rights”, more so than they already have. Therefore, we must shut out misogynistic rhetoric which seeks to… [I shall not continue for fear of adding more pollution to the air].
I trust I am not alone in finding this line of thinking (a word I am using as liberally as I am able) to be unsettling at best, and nauseating at worst. I struggle to think of a more tribal, sexiest, or divisive statement one can make than to exclude an entire group of people from a conversation simply on the basis of their genitalia. Surely, this would not be the case were the shoe on the other foot. Such a thing could be perceived as sophomoric rhetoric, meant to shield your position from some much needed scrutiny, on par with other such axioms as: “I support {the current thing}, because it is {the current year}.”
How Many Voices Do We Want, Again?
On such a culturally relevant issue like abortion, it’s strange that some want to give everyone a voice on the matter, while others only seem to want half of the culture to have any say about it. “It is a women’s issue…”, they will say, “…and, therefore, only women should be allowed to speak about it.”
This is the case, of course, unless the women in question happen to be anti-abortion. Then, their voice counts for little, because all they’re doing is, “parroting their husband’s opinion”, or they’ve been “brainwashed by the malevolent patriarchy”. Because, you see, if those women had only “thought for themselves”, then they’d come to the same conclusions as the feminist studies professor of {insert university name} and/or held the opinion which the popular culture told them was the most liberating to have. It’s now, at this point, gone from an issue reserved only for women to discuss, to one which only women of a particular political and ideological persuasion may discuss.
I’ll Give It A Try
I know I don’t have a uterus, vagina, ovaries, or any other “Genetic Pass” which would grant me the ability to speak my own mind on this matter, but I suppose I can try my hand at it.
You see, being married, having a couple children of my own, and having passed 7th grade sexual education (much to my mother’s chagrin), I understand that it takes two people to make a baby. Two people. No more, and no fewer. Each with their own thoughts, ideas, and predispositions as to their path forward, after they have (through their sexual congress) conceived a child. Two parts making the whole. Neither being more important than the other, because absent either, the child would not exist in the first place.
Why The Need To Speak?
That alone warrants the ability to speak on the issue; but I won’t stop there, because this issue is not simply functional.
I have on occasion been asked, “Why do you feel the need to speak about an issue which has nothing to do with you?” And to that I have a few questions of my own.
???
Are greater amounts of melanin in the skin required to believe the Transatlantic Slave trade was an affront to humanity and dignity of those it enslaved? Are Jewish people the only voices allowed to speak up about the heinous actions perpetrated against the Jews in WWII by the Third Reich? Are Muslims the only ones allowed to protest the ethnic cleansing against the Uighur Muslims by the Chinese Communist Party?
Solutions to any issue are not homogenous in their origin; they don’t come about one particular way, from one particular source, always. Many problems require seeing it from another perspective in order to solve it. For if it had only been Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, Amos G. Beman, Charles Lenox Remond, Martin R. Delany, and George T. Downing, as well as, other brave former slaves fighting to end slavery in the 19th century, who is to say how far it would have gotten? There were many in that day who believed that, due to the color of their skin, such men should not have any say on any matter, let alone slavery.
Answers/Solutions
Complex issues require cooperation for solutions. Human issues require the whole of humanity to bring about solutions.
However, abortion is not a complex issue. Quite the contrary, it is actually fairly straight forward. Either you believe there are circumstances under which it is acceptable to end an innocent human life (most of which I have found are centered around selfishness and convenience), or you don’t believe any circumstance predicates such vile an action. Abortion is not solely a women’s issue. It is very much a human issue. So why cut half of humanity out of the conversation?
To quote modern fantasy’s favorite dwarf, Tyrion Lannister, from A Clash of Kings: “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
The “Men” They Let Speak (Sometimes)
Of course, just as there is a particular type of woman that is just as evil as we horrible visages of the “Patriarchy”, there is also a man whom they deem acceptable. The kind of man who drinks soy lattes, is willing to be in an open relationship, and is on enough medications to open a CVS: the antithesis of everything his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were. A man not valued for his thoughts or opinions, oh no; his value is ‘silence’, while holding placards and showing up at rallies. And should he dare to speak, his opinion often begins with, “Well, I don’t believe I can have an opinion on this issue…” (and that’s the only reason such a man is kept around, because he is not a threat, be it physical, emotional, or intellectual). He will not put himself in a position to challenge these women when it comes to murdering innocent human life. He is like Saul of Tarsus, holding the coats of those stoning Stephen the Martyr.
Evil Doesn’t Like…
That is the reason they say, “No uterus, no opinion”. Evil does not like to be challenged. It does not take kindly when its vile deeds are exposed before the masses. Evil does not care for your opinion if your words hold it to account, and threaten its ability to continue doing what it pleases.
Evil prefers those who remain silent, get in line, and nod in approval as innocent blood is spilled.
