I Do Not Need a Uterus!

Back to the Index

One day in July, two neighbors and I were discussing Grandpa Bob's chances of beating Slick Willie in November. One neighbor (I know her as Tessie's mommy) thought that Sen. Dole's strong pro-life record may cost him the election. That's another topic (polls say she's 180 degrees off) -- but the discussion led to Tessie's mommy asserting, with twinkle in eye, that men shouldn't have any say in the debate because "a man doesn't have a uterus.". The implied (but never developed) logic is, Men don't know what it's like to carry and give birth to children, and therefore lack a stake in the discussion and an adequate perspective. In other words, "Mind your own business!".

Please pardon me if I first react emotionally: This is an asinine, bigoted, sexist argument! (That having been said....)

Should men have no say in the abortion debate because we cannot have babies? One test is to carry the argument to its extreme application. Who else, besides men, have no interest in the outcome of the abortion debate? Pre-pubescent women (girls) cannot have babies, so the possession of a uterus is irrelevant. They, therefore, should have no say. At the other end of the scale, post-menopausal women should be excluded. Likewise, women in-between should be screened to ensure that women with the condition of sterility are excluded. They obviously will never run the risk of experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. Then we must exclude virgins, secondary virgins, women who have not yet achieved pregnancy, lesbians, monogamous partners of sterile men, and women who indulge in "safe sex". After all, they don't have a stake in the abortion debate, either. For that matter, any woman who opposes abortion obviously doesn't get it, does not grasp the reasons why unrestricted abortion is a woman's god-given right, so she should be gagged as well. In the words of former Texas Governor Ann Richards, describing a pro-life woman politician from her state, "She's not a real woman.". In short, pro-choicers want to disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with them.

I admit, there is a scrap of truth to the idea that men don't have a stake in the abortion issue. The scrap is not that we have no stake in it -- we do! -- but that our physical health and comfort are not directly effected by pregnancy. We are effected economically in that those of us who are responsible must support the women we impregnate as well as their children. This requires not just money, but time, energy, and occupational hazards. Any real man will give himself for his woman and his child.

We are affected morally as well. Any man who is allowed to flee familial responsibility dies a little bit inside. Either the guilt and failure contributes to his decline as an achiever, or it contributes to a decline in his decency as a human being -- and when it comes to ethics, a decline in one area of one's life brings down all areas. This cuts two ways: One can escape responsibility through abortion; but, on the other hand, abortion is itself an escape route. Likewise, the loss of reputation due to illegitimate fatherhood can cost a man his marriage, his status, and his career.

The mind-your-own-business argument having failed, pro-aborts try to have it both ways by then claiming that a man's interest in the abortion debate is based on his desire to oppress women. Although I may try at a later date to give this argument more extensive consideration on my feminism page, I tend to dismiss it in this context. I am not a power-crazed chauvinist. Even within my own family, what I want most is to be left alone. I do think that specialization of skills and aptitudes is an economically superior way for things to work, and God has designed us thus. My wife can dress my daughter in a flash, but can't do it without her help. I can write a check in two minutes that my wife can write in thirty seconds. Is it oppression to leave bill-paying to my wife? My wife, on the other hand, lacks the strength to pull a spark plug and the endurance to mow the lawn in 100 degree weather. Is it oppression when she leaves those jobs to me? Even God Himself, while equal in His three manifestations, plays a different role in each. But I'm not an absolutist about making distinctions between the roles of men and women. What desire I have to see society or my own family operate smoothly does not outweigh my attitudes about human rights. And to me, the foundational test is the conflict between the rights of reluctant mothers and those of their children. I know there are Neanderthals who are tyrants, as well as wimps who are total pacifists. I tend, however, to observe or project moderate views onto most men.

If men have any stake in the outcome of the abortion debate, the advantages of allowing abortion far outweigh the disadvantages. It is therefore to the advantage of abortion advocates to stop spouting this gag rule.

If there is a scrap of truth to the argument that men have no stake in the issue of the legality of abortion, it can also be argued that women who have a stake in the abortion debate also have a conflict of interest. I don't know who the judge will be that is assigned to Paula Jones' suit against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment... but suppose the judge were Jones' big sister, who had also once been sexually harassed, say, by Ted Kennedy? Would you say, "Hurrah, this will be a good judge! She can understand Paula's case, she has a stake in the outcome of the trial, she has a uterus"? Or would you prefer that such a judge disqualify herself?

Now try some role-playing. Put yourself in the place of a prenatal baby. Whom do you wish to be your judge? If she can abort your gestation, your mother stands to avoid a few months of discomfort and inconvenience and a few minutes (perhaps hours) of excruciating pain. She may save thousands of dollars, perhaps even her education or career. And consider all the social pressures she can avoid. Does that make her more qualified to decide your fate? Or doesn't the conflict of interest bother you? Wouldn't you want your fate to be decided by someone who will not benefit from your death, someone with no such conflict of interest? Although men have an interest -- and we all have an interest in each others' affairs to greater or lesser degrees -- it is less than women's. If we have less of a stake in the outcome of the debate, doesn't that make us less impartial? Doesn't it meant that women have a greater conflict of interest? I have no intention of excluding anyone from the abortion debate, but the pro-aborts claim that those with less conflict of interest should be censored. I propose that the opposite would be true: If anyone should be disqualified from the abortion debate on the basis of their sex, it is women, not men.

Let me re-iterate my self-defense. I've been accused in the past of saying that women should not have a say in the debate. Wrong! I do not argue that women should have no say in the political debate over the legality of abortion. Rather, I argue that, although women may better understand the experience of pregnancy, this does not place them in a better position to judge the morality of its premature termination. I wish merely to refute the sexist premise that sans-uteral persons should have no say!

Regarding conflict of interest, men have been accused of using the denial of abortions as a way to dominate women. This drive to dominate supposedly constitutes a stake in the outcome of the abortion debate. Men, therefore, have a conflict of interest which disqualifies them. I will not resist the argument that the average man is, as a result of testosterone poisoning, more aggressive than the average woman, and therefore more driven to dominate the opposite sex. It has some statistical and historical validity.

I must contest, however, the assertion that your generic, male Neanderthal would rather force his woman to carry her child to term rather have an abortion. Oh, to the contrary, the type of man whose girlfriend is about to have an abortion does not want to be saddled with the responsibility of raising a child or sponsoring a wife! He does not want bills, baby-sitting, commitment, or (worst of all!) fidelity. No, the drive to dominate is far outweighed by the desire for independence, and abortion provides one with independence from one's little mistakes. The interest of men in abortion works in favor of the pro-abort position, not against it! Statistics bear this up. Abortion-rights supporters claim that male companions tend to support the decisions of their aborting partners. In fact, one survey showed that four out of five women at abortion clinics were willing to bear their babies to full term but were having abortions due to pressure from boyfriends, family, counselors, and so-called friends. So if you disqualify men from having a say regarding abortion on the basis of their interests, you are working against yourself. I would assert that if men are more supportive of the right to life than are women, it is because they have set aside their personal interests and weighed the conflicting rights and burdens of unwilling mothers and their pre-natal babies.

That is the key: weighing both sides. To abortion supporters, the pro-abortion arguments are all right and the anti-abortion arguments are either all wrong or all irrelevant. There is no sense of perspective, of comparing the pluses and minus from both sides, of weighing conflicting rights. But I digress. On the other hand...

Before I get back on topic, I'd like to apply my definition of manhood. No real man would sacrifice the life of an innocent human being for the sake of his own convenience, freedom, or prosperity. A lot of men would. There are men who beat their wives, rape their daughters, kill their mothers. That is aberrant and abhorrent to a real man. Real men still practice chivalry. Real men still are driven to sacrifice their longevity in order to succeed in their careers for the sake of their families. Real men still risk their lives for the sake of those weaker than themselves. And a real man would never have an abortion, even to save his own life, unless the probability of saving the baby was less than that of saving himself. So don't tell me that having a uterus is even relevant. Grrrrrrr!!

If it can be argued that men should have no say in the abortion debate because they can't have babies, it can be countered that men should have a say because of their greater impartiality, whereas women should have no say in the abortion debate because they can have babies.

My conclusion, then, is that what is really meant by this argument of the pro-aborts is that men who are pro-life should be gagged. It is a feeble attempt to be clever and to censor pro-life males.

Back to Rich's Pro-Life Page

• Back to Rich's paginal home

• Rich's Links page

• Political stuff

• (Snicker) Ha ha, ho ho ho, hee hee, (snort) ha ha ha ha...

• Return to GeoCities CapitolHill