Maxim-26

No Womb, No View?

By Tim Wilson May 31, 2022

Protests erupted in New Zealand recently following the recent news that the foundational case legalising abortion in the US, Roe vs. Wade, may be revoked by that country’s Supreme Court.

If you aren’t at risk of having a baby, shut up.

“No Uterus, No Opinion” proclaimed a sign waved by a protester in Auckland. The phrase originates (as so many culture war motifs do) in America. Initially, Friends character Rachel said it to Ross in the sitcom, not about abortion, but Braxton-Hicks contractions. It was appropriated by pro-choice activists.

Translation: If you aren’t at risk of having a baby, shut up.

The rationale has some merit. Men don’t have children; women do. Our proximity to a situation may compel us more to consider it more deeply. Individual freedom is expressed also: one should be allowed agency over one’s own body.

The best that can be said of both assertions is that they’re worth debating.

But being male doesn’t prevent you experiencing the risks of abortion. I’m adopted. My wonderful parents and I had this opportunity because a brave young woman fell pregnant with me at 14, and gave birth to me at 15. Were the current laws in place, I would have been a statistic rather than a human.

My birth mother is the hero of my existence. I’m grateful each day for the life that she courageously gave me. She’s the reason I write these words today. Yet the protester’s placard insists doubly that I can’t engage with this issue because, if you take the assertion to a logical conclusion, I shouldn’t be alive. Given that I am, I mustn’t speak because of my biology.

The best that can be said of both assertions is that they’re worth debating.

Identity doesn’t preclude sympathy.

In fact, we’re talking about two matters here, and both relate to ontology (the study of existence). On the one hand, there’s blinding clarity about what makes an opinion valid: If you have a womb, you’re permitted a view. On the other hand, there’s confusion about when a life becomes valid. At conception? When the heart beats? Or when it looks human on a scan?

It’s inconsistent that those demanding the precision of the first argument then proclaim vagueness to make the second.

Asserting that only certain cohorts may credibly speak on particular issues fragments us

Even more than who has or doesn’t have a uterus, the abortion question is a fundamental disagreement about what defines a human being. So let’s not predicate this important exchange on judgement calls about who may or may not be allowed to participate in that discussion. The outpouring of aroha and support for the Ukraine from non-Ukrainians emphatically suggests that identity doesn’t preclude sympathy.

There’s a larger problem here. Asserting that only certain cohorts may credibly speak on particular issues fragments us: Men vs. women, Māori vs. Pakeha, Boomer vs. Millennial… the regress is infinite and corrosive. To function well as a country, we need everyone to be able to contribute to conversations that cement the common good. You see truth is bolstered by more information, not less.

Please, opine, uterus or not. If we have to borrow anything more from Friends, it’s that Ross and Rachel need to talk more. So do real people.

go back
Maxim-26

Maxim Institute is an independent charitable trust that relies on the generous support of families, community groups, trusts, and individuals—without them, we wouldn’t exist.

We’d love to have you join our Community of Supporters. We need people like you to help us continue this work—and to grow it—so we can respond to today’s challenges and opportunities and help create a better future for the next generation.