Do I Really Need a Uterus? A Refutation of a Common "Pro-Choice" Argument

I am not usually one to get involved in debates on cultural issues. Generally speaking, I prefer to stick to biblical and theological questions and issues. But more and more, I am finding that I just cannot remain silent. Recently, with events that have transpired in Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and elsewhere, I have seen an uptick in what has become a standard tactic wielded by the "pro-choice" crowd concerning the alleged right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy (read: murder her child). In a nutshell, the argument goes, "no uterus, no opinion". This diversionary tactic essentially attempts to de-legitimize every man from having an opinion on the abortion debate (unless of course, the man in question acts like a good little beta male and slavishly gets in line with the Leftist agenda). After all, abortion is a "women's rights" issue and only women should have a say, right? Wrong.

First of all, let's put the "women's rights" issue to bed right away. The assertion that abortion is all about "women's rights" is a true red herring. A red herring, according to at least one website, is basically a way of distracting from the real issue at hand. It may sound good, but it's not actually relevant. In this case, appealing to "women's rights" distracts from the real issue, which is that some people just want to kill a developing child in its mother's womb, typically (but not always) for reasons of convenience. Now, equal pay for doing the same job as a man? That is a women's rights issue. Protecting against unwanted sexual advances and harassment? That also is a women's rights issue. Abortion? That is not. That is an issue of protecting the rights of the unborn, specifically the rights of the unborn to not be violently murdered by vacuum suction (or by any other savage means).

But let's return to the question of the alleged uterine-possession prerequisite to having a conviction on the matter. Basically, what is being said is that a man should not be allowed to have an opinion on what a woman should do with her body (this assumes of course that the child inside her doesn't have a body of his/her own, but I digress). It sounds plausible on the surface. I mean why should a man be concerned with what women do? The reason is because both men and women exist together on this planet. That is just an obvious fact of life. Men and women share the world with each other in a symbiotic way. What one does affects the other. What happens to one affects - positively or negatively- the other. Feminists would like you to believe that "liberated" women should just be left alone to do what they wish as if it was their business and theirs alone; but the world just doesn't work that way.  So be gone with stupid and foolish arguments that merely distract with pious sounding, but ultimately self-serving sophistry.

You see, the problem with most ideological/political liberals is that they live in a fantasy world. They are trying desperately to create a world that just doesn't exist and can't exist¹. They are masters at effectively trying to deconstruct and redefine the most basic of human institutions and then when their pretentious fantasies are called to account, they resort to crying, mewling, ad hominem attacks, and childish temper tantrums.

Again, this is not the kind of thing I like to do. As I mentioned before, cultural issues like abortion are not the main emphasis of this blog. Even less of an emphasis of this blog and ministry is the kind of bare-knuckled polemics I have just engaged in. Nevertheless, I felt that it was necessary to address this issue head-on because a bad argument advanced by depraved child-murderers and their enablers continues to make the rounds, particularly on social media.

¹ Of course I would be remiss not to point out that the problem with many ideological/political conservatives is that they are just jerks with a gun fetish.