Hello, Roland Warren here.
I recently met a young man from an Ivy League
university who started a pro-life group on
his campus.
I asked him if there was a particular obstacle
he faced where I could be helpful.
Without hesitation, he told me the pro-choice
folks on campus often tell him that since
he cannot get pregnant and face the burden
of an unplanned pregnancy, what he says or
thinks about abortion does not matter.
As a man who is president of Care Net I have
heard this challenge to men so often that
I have coined it the “no womb/no say”
perspective.
In short, since a man does not have a womb
to carry an unborn child, he should have no
say in what happens to an unborn child in
the womb.
Now, without analysis, this may seem to make
sense.
However, when you really consider the underlying
principle of this line of thinking, it quickly
becomes clear that it may be a good “sound
bite,” but it is clearly not “sound logic.”
But before I deal with the logic aspect, I
would be remiss if I did not address the fact
that those who use this argument are being
disingenuous.
Here is what Unite for Reproductive & Gender
Equity (URGE), a major proponent of the bro-choice
movement to engage men in the abortion debate,
says on its website:
“Pro-choice men can be a powerful force
in helping move our policy agenda forward,
which is exactly why URGE leads the way in
recruiting and elevating their voices within
this movement.
By building a network of outspoken, actively
engaged men, we are building the power necessary
to move policy and win on our issues.”
After reading URGE’s perspective, I was
reminded of the old quip, “When I want your
opinion, I will give it to you!”
For the “Bro Choice” advocates, it’s
perfectly fine and even required for men to
engage in the abortion debate — as long
as they come down on the their side.
Now, the “no womb/no say” perspective
is also very problematic when you consider
it through the lens of logic.
Essentially, the principle underlying the
view is this: Unless one is impacted by an
issue or action in the most direct way, one
should have no agency in making decisions
about that issue or action.
So let’s consider a few situations.
Should a woman who is a stay-at-home mom and,
therefore, makes no income outside the home,
have a say on tax policy?
After all, she doesn’t directly pay taxes
on an income.
Or, should someone who does not own a gun
or has never been impacted by gun violence have a
say in what our nation’s gun laws should
be?
Again, a non-gun owner is not going to be
directly impacted if access to guns is limited.
When you consider this perspective in light
of our nation’s history, it’s especially
troubling.
For example, consider the Civil War.
The South was primarily an agrarian society
that, in large measure, was structured and
directly dependent on slave labor.
Indeed, a key aspect of the South’s “states’
rights” argument was that since the North’s
society and economic system would not be as
directly impacted by the abolition of slavery,
the North should have no say.
Indeed, “no slaves/no say” was the battle cry for the South.
Also consider the issue of voting rights in
the United States.
From our nation’s founding, voting rights
were limited to property owners or tax paying
white males, who were about 6 percent of the
population.
So the notion was “no property/no say.”
The view held by many men was that women were
not and should not be as directly involved
in the economic and civil aspect of American
society as men.
Consequently, these men held a “womb/no
say” perspective when it came to voting
rights.
Well, the Women’s Suffrage movement challenged
this perspective, and in 1920, with the passage
of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution,
women were given the right to vote … by
men.
You see, in all of the above examples, we
have rightly rejected the principle that undergirds
the “no womb/no say” perspective.
Why?
Because when considering what is best for
our society, we don’t just consider the
views of those most directly impacted to the
exclusion of all others.
To do so would be an injustice, especially
to those who are vulnerable.
Rather, we give an equal say and even encourage
the voices of those who are affected, even
if only indirectly.
Indeed, a stay-at-home mom is affected by
tax policy, so she has an equal right and
is encouraged to vote.
Our nation's gun laws affect the safety of
the communities where the non-gun owners live
and raise their children, so they must have
a say in the laws that are enacted.
The moral stain and injustice of slavery affected
those in the North, so they had an agency and
an obligation to fight a bloody war to eliminate
it.
The laws that were passed in this nation affected
women’s rights to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, so it was an injustice
to deny them the right to vote.
Accordingly, when an unborn child is killed
in the womb, especially if it is his child,
it deeply affects a man.
So, doesn’t it make sense for him to have
a say, too?
Until next time, may God bless you daily as you serve Him faithfully.
