In response to the Supreme Court decision leak signaling the end of Roe v. Wade, many Hollywood celebrities, such as Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Laura Dern, attended protests in New York City and Washington, DC, supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion. Many of the protesters at these events were chanting, “no uterus, no opinion”. It is interesting that these women are taking the position that only people with specific body parts are entitled to be engaged in the democratic process because for the first 133 years of this country, if you didn’t have a penis, you weren’t allowed to vote. So, in essence, these women are behaving exactly like many of the powerful men in our country’s history who denied women the right to vote based on their biology.
But if we are being truly objective when excluding people from the abortion debate, it should be the exact opposite – If you have a uterus, you should have no opinion. Why? Because women have a vested one-sided interest in the legality of abortion, so they bring a biased point of view. They would not be able to look at the issue objectively. And as is standard practice, people who have a vested one-sided interest on an issue, usually recuse themselves and allow people with a more unbiased view to pass judgement. But men cannot be objective either, because they also have a vested interest in abortion. In fact, more men than women want abortion to be legal because many men want to be able to have as much sex as possible, and then if they get the woman pregnant, they can sidestep their responsibility by shipping her off to a doctor to kill the baby. If we were able to ask the baby, I would surmise that 99.9999% of them would be stridently against abortion, just as you and I are stridently against murder because everyone is for criminalizing any act that could get you killed.
Many of these same outspoken pro-abortionists, shouting “my body, body choice”, last year were demanding that the government institute vaccine mandates for Covid. When it came to potentially saving their own life, they were all for allowing the government to make medical decisions for others and to determine what happens to other people’s bodies. It is only when someone else’s life is being protected by government intervention and not their own, do these people tell the government to keep their hands of the citizens’ bodies. At least, the people against vaccine mandates were willing to put their own lives on the line for their libertarian beliefs.
The abortion debate proves that many in the women’s rights movement are not about equal rights for both sexes but about gaining power for their own sex. And if society had been structured as a matriarchy, then they would have abused their power to keep men down as much as the worst male chauvinist ever did to women because in the abortion debate two groups of people have a claim to rights; the woman claims the bodily autonomy not to remain pregnant, while the baby claims the bodily autonomy not to be killed. These women blindly exert their right to bodily autonomy without even considering the right to life of the baby. So, when they are put in the power position, equality and civil rights for all suddenly become irrelevant
It’s a very similar to race relations in America. When white people had the power, minorities, rightfully so, demanded equal rights and equal protection under the law, and were against discrimination based on skin color. But now that the pendulum is swinging the other way, and minorities have power, many prominent civil rights advocates have become less concerned about equal rights, equal protection under the law and discrimination based on skin color, if those things happen to get in the way of them exerting their power. They have no problem with schools teaching that white people are inherently evil and irredeemably racists. They are all for racial preferences in college admissions and in hiring. They are supporting everything they’d be against if the races were switched which shows that many of these people if America had been a black dominated society from the beginning, they would have been the ones holding the whips.
That’s what the Black Power movement was all about. It wasn’t about equal rights and equal protection; it was about black people replacing white people in the repressive racial hierarchical structure of society. Their vision of justice was no more just than the unjust system they claimed to be fighting to upend. Only people like Dr. Martin Luther King who envisioned a colorblind society, stood for true equality, and true equal justice under the law. The true test of character and morality is how you use the power given to you. Do you use it for justice? Or do you abuse it for your own purposes? But that is what the women who are chanting, “no uterus, no opinion” are all about, abusing power for their own purposes.
I don’t know how anyone can march in public advocating for the murder of little babies. It’s as bad as publicly marching for slavery or the Holocaust. The amazing thing about the internet is that these protests and these opinions will be part of public record for as long as civilization exists. And these people’s advocacy for abortion will become more and more horrid over the years the more science proves that life begins at conception and abortion is tantamount to murder. No one would have wanted to be filmed in 1863 protesting against the Emancipation Proclamation or goose-stepping down the streets of Berlin in 1933. Who wants to be the equivalent to the police officer fire-hosing black protesters in Birmingham in 1963? Or removing blacks from the lunch counters in 1960? Or preventing a little black girl from entering a white public school in 1954. So, I’m not so sure, a hundred years from now, you want to be the person pictured holding the pro-baby killing sign.
All of those people in history were as convinced that their evil positions were as morally right as the pro-abortion protesters believe theirs are. Only time will tell who is on the right side. I sleep well at night knowing that if my position on abortion is proven to be wrong, then I simply advocated for the births of millions of children, but if proven right, then I spoke out against the killing of 60 million babies. While if the pro-abortion side is proven right, they merely supported the termination of millions of pregnancies, but if they are proven wrong, then they were vocal advocates for the murder of 60 million babies. That’s an untenable position to take. It is a position that you must be 100% convinced beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt that it is the right position, because if proven wrong, it is such an evil position to hold that there is no recovery from it. It would put you in the category of some of the worst people in human history. It would be hard for me to hold a position with even the slimmest possibility that I could be advocating for evil.
A hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, when the abortion debate is resolved, will the historians of the day place a historical context on the positions that people hold on abortion, or will they be held to the prevailing standard of the day as we do to the leaders of our past. If society finally sees abortion for the murder that it is, will politicians like Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton have their names sullied and their images torn down? Will they be canceled and vilified? Will they be seen as evil for holding an acceptable political position in their day but a wholly unacceptable position in that future time? Only time will tell whose opinions are correct, but until then, everyone is entitled to voice their opinion on every issue regardless of what body parts they have.
Judd Garrett is a graduate from Princeton University, and a former NFL player, coach, and executive. He has been a contributor to the website Real Clear Politics. He has recently published his first novel, No Wind.