I have been thinking about abortions a lot lately. There’s just something about the holiday season that makes me think about the sanctity of life, fetuses and women’s rights. It’s the hottest of hot button issues.
Abortion debates bring up many questions. When does life begin? Is that answer in science or philosophy? What is a person’s responsibility to their unborn child? Once pregnant, should they be forced to carry the baby until it is born? Should the government be telling women what to do with their bodies anyway? What business do they have dictating to people what they should and shouldn’t do in their homes? Do not women have the right to decide whether they will have a child or not? And what if it were illegal? What should the punishment be for an illegal abortion? Should there be jail time? If abortions are permitted, should society encourage them? Should people who get abortions be proud of them?
These questions are why I find my mind coming back to this issue. Each of them requires a sophisticated answer because the development of the fetus in the mother’s womb is such a strange happening. A mother, person with rights of her own, has another person or person-in-the-making (depends on who you talk to) living inside her.
Ninety percent of abortion discussion is coming up with absurd scenarios to try and equate the strange pregnant mother-unborn child relationship. People have come up with everything, from being a homeowner evicting an unwanted guest to waking up attached to a violinist, all in an attempt to sway people’s opinions one way or the other.
I am easily swayed. I find myself going between pro-life and pro-choice nonstop. I’ll read a pro-choice comment on a blog and be one hundred percent gung-ho about it until I read a follow-up blog post about the importance of life. I can’t make up my mind. The arguments are so well-reasoned on both sides. I wish they could both be right.
I had a long blog post prepared to discuss both positions at length and to finalize my own position on the issue. But then I read this opinion piece and realized I had to immediately delete my blog post.
“In the House currently sitting 362 men, there are only 76 women. There is no reason why a group of people should even be voting on women’s reproductive rights, especially one where the men outnumber the women four to one. Men do not have the right to an opinion in the matter of abortion.”
So according to this young woman, only those with uteri have been bestowed with the power to have valid opinions about abortions. I can accept that, but I do have some questions.
At what age does a person gain this “valid opinion on abortion” power? Is it all persons with uteri young and old? Does an eight-year-old girl have a more valid opinion than her father on abortions? Or is it only after she’s reached the age of majority?
What if a person with a uterus gets their opinion on abortions from a person without a uterus? Like an adult woman reads some pro-choice blog by a guy and then forms her opinion based on that guy’s information. The man’s opinion was invalid due to his lack of uterus. Is that opinion now valid because a woman has that exact same opinion?
What if a woman’s uterus becomes damaged? Not to be graphic, but things happen in this life. The uterus is not indestructible. Would damage to a woman’s uterus impede her ability to argue about abortions? Are her opinion on abortions less valid than a woman who has a perfectly functioning uterus? Or is the possession of the uterus all that is needed for the opinion? Is that something a doctor can fix if it does happen?
What if a woman is born without developing a uterus? This is a real ailment. Is she the same as a man since she can’t have kids? If a woman donates her uterus to her, would she be fine then? What if that woman has an artificial uterus inserted? Like scientists build her a new uterus. Do those count?
Is the valid abortion argument power in the uterus or in the woman herself? If it’s the former, then what if a woman loses her uterus? Women can have their uterus removed and live. Like what if some girl had a really crazy night out. Like the craziest night out ever. What if she woke up the next morning and her uterus was gone. If she were to go online and argue with a pro-lifer, would she still have valid arguments? Does her prior experience with a uterus make her okay?
What if a woman was born without a uterus, had an artificial science uterus installed that got damaged, and then lost that uterus after a really crazy night?
What about marriage? Man and wife share everything. Can a woman share her uterus power with her husband? Like, let’s say her husband loves to go down to the abortion clinic and protest. The wife doesn’t need the power as she’s going grocery shopping. Can she lend it out to him for the day? What if she goes with him and just stands there holding his hand? Could his opinions be valid then?
Here’s a scenario. A woman paralyzed from the neck down spends all her day in a hospital bed. Prior to the accident that left her unable to move, the greatest joy in her life was arguing with people on the internet about abortions. After the accident, she can only move her eyes and eyelids. She works out a system of communication with her male caretaker. He reads her the latest articles about abortions off the internet to keep her knowledge sharp. She decides that her condition is not going to hold her back from the greatest joy in her life. So she has him respond to articles for her. He is only a puppet. Are her opinions now invalid because a person without a uterus is typing them out for her? Or are they okay because the original source is a person with a uterus?
What if a guy has a woman regurgitate all his opinions on abortions? Like let’s say I had a woman write the blog post I wanted to write on abortions. Would it now be valid because a woman technically wrote it?
The original woman in question said you have to have a uterus but she did not say you have to have one inside of you. Let’s say a uterus falls off a truck. It was on its way to the Uterus Transplant clinic, hit a bump in the road that sent uteri flying. Some weirdo picks the uterus up, puts it on ice, and Now he technically has his own uterus. Has he now gained the power to have valid opinions on abortion?
She failed to mention you have to have a human uterus. Can a female deer have a valid opinion on abortions? What if scientists teach a female deer how to talk and its first words are “The unborn are organisms. They are not merely a ‘part of the woman’s body,’ unless you take the position that a pregnant woman has four arms, four legs, twenty fingers, two heads, two noses, and half the time, working male genitalia. As philosopher Richard Stith points out, human beings do not develop piece-by-piece like a car; rather, they develop themselves from within like an old Polaroid picture.” Would have to heed the deer’s words?
Can uterus power stack? If a woman were to come into possession of two uteri, does she have stronger arguments for her position on abortion than the average woman? If uterus power does stack, is there a limit? What’s stopping some woman from going psycho and murdering millions of women and collecting their uteri one by one like the monster from Jeepers Creepers except only with uteri? She could have the power of a million uteri at her fingertips. Everyone’s stances on abortion would become invalid in the presence of this giant uterus monster.