“No Uterus, No Opinion” Is A Destructive Ideology
Stop pretending abortion is a women’s issue.
The abortion debate is one that has been long, complicated, and vicious.
For decades, feminists and pro-choice advocates have been fighting for the right of women to get abortions, seeing it as a way for women to express bodily autonomy, while pro-life advocates have been fighting to keep it illegal, seeing fetuses as people, therefore making abortion murder.
Over the years, we’ve seen a lot of metaphors and comparisons used by each side to try and gain the upper hand, with the recent debate venturing into quite bizarre territory.
For instance, people on the pro-choice side of the debate have started a movement that’s essentially a nuclear option, known as “no uterus, no opinion”.
This is a quote ripped out of an episode of the sitcom Friends, and feminists have used this to try and force pro-life men out of the abortion debate. The thesis of “no uterus, no opinion” is simple: men will never personally experience pregnancy or childbirth, therefore they lack empathy with women and aren’t equipped to make a proper decision on whether or not abortion should be legal.
“No uterus, no opinion” has gained a disturbing amount of traction with pro-choice feminists, which is unfortunate, because it has a lot of negative implications for not just abortion, but political discourse as a whole.
Let me ask this: what is the true premise of “no uterus, no opinion”? It isn’t just that abortion is a women’s issue, it’s also that political issues are exclusive to those who are personally connected to them.
The thesis here, when extended beyond abortion, becomes transparently absurd.
Let’s look at marijuana legalization. Currently, people all over the country are debating what to do with marijuana, whether it should be available for recreational purposes, medical purposes, or not at all.
However, most people in the debate won’t be personally affected by its outcome. About 1 in 7 adults have used marijuana, and while it will be important for them, for the other 6 in 7 of us, this debate is irrelevant.
Whether or not marijuana is legal, I will likely never touch a joint, but does that mean I shouldn’t have an opinion on marijuana legalization? Should we begin a “no joint, no opinion” movement?
Obviously not. Even if I won’t personally smoke marijuana, the impacts of the debate have broader implications for society, such as impacts on the crime rate, productivity, and drug use.
And it can go further. With education, should we only allow for students and teachers to weigh in on educational policy? Should we only allow gun owners and gun violence victims to determine gun control? Should we only allow people with a stake in the prison industry to vote on criminal justice reform?
If this philosophy doesn’t work elsewhere, then why are we applying it to abortion? While it’s true that men won’t personally have to get an abortion, it’s still an issue that affects everybody. Whether or not we allow abortions will have economic and healthcare implications, and it will come to personally affect many men if they ever have a partner considering abortion.
Of course, women should be paid attention to in the conversation, and given precedent, but it shouldn’t be there’s entirely. Abortion isn’t a “women’s issue”; it’s a societal issue.
Also, even if we were to buy the premise of “no uterus, no opinion”, it wouldn’t help women and pro-choice advocates secure abortion rights. That’s because abortion is a fight that women need men to win.
If abortion feels exclusive, and men don’t think they can work with women to discuss the issue, they’ll grow apathetic. They’ll drop out of the debate, and as a result, the issue of abortion will lose importance.
Then, major decisions on abortion will be made out of the public eye. Since men won’t be allowed to have an opinion, they won’t have a reason to care, and they won’t be outraged if the government acts improperly.
If feminists were thinking in their best interests, they would drop the “no uterus, no opinion” ideology. It’s fallacious, isn’t logically sound, and would only serve to make society worse if it was followed.
Like all issues, abortion needs to be inclusive, with everyone allowed into the discussion, no matter how much we disagree with them.
