Tim Wilson
Auckland, May 30, 2022
Protests erupted in New Zealand recently following the news that the foundational legislation legalising abortion in the US, Roe vs. Wade, may be revoked by that country’s Supreme Court.
“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 are not at risk of having a baby, shut up.
Rationale and merit
The rationale has some merit. Men don’t have children; women do. Our proximity to a situation may compel us to consider it more deeply. Individual freedom is expressed also: one should be allowed agency over one’s own body.
But being male does not prevent you from experiencing the risks of abortion.
I am 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 am grateful each day for the life that she courageously gave me. She is the reason I write these words today.
Yet the protester’s placard insists doubly that I cannot engage with this issue because, if you take the assertion to a logical conclusion, I should not be alive. Given that I am, I must not speak because of my biology.
The study of existence
The best that can be said of both assertions is that they are worth debating.
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 are permitted a view.
On the other hand, there is confusion about when life becomes valid. At conception? When the heart beats? Or when it looks human on a scan?
It is inconsistent that those demanding the precision of the first argument then proclaim vagueness to make the second.
Even more than who has or does not have a uterus, the abortion question is a fundamental disagreement about what defines a human being.
So, let us 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 Ukraine from non-Ukrainians emphatically suggests that identity does not preclude sympathy.
There is 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 is that Ross and Rachel need to talk more.
So do real people.
Tim Wilson is Executive Director of Maxim Institute based in Auckland.
