Part 5: When Pro-Choice Men Speak, the Double Standard Emerges
One of the most glaring inconsistencies in the "no uterus, no opinion" argument is the way it is applied. While pro-life men are dismissed as irrelevant for not having a uterus, pro-choice men are often celebrated and even given platforms to advocate for abortion rights. This double standard highlights not only the inconsistency of the argument but also its true purpose: to silence opposition rather than engage in meaningful debate.
The Double Standard in Action
Consider the rhetoric surrounding male pro-choice advocates like former President Bill Clinton, actor Mark Ruffalo, and countless others who champion abortion rights. These men are often lauded for being "allies" and "advocates for women's autonomy." Their lack of a uterus is never questioned—in fact, their support is actively encouraged and praised.
But if a pro-life man dares to speak out, the reaction is starkly different. Suddenly, his lack of a uterus is used to invalidate his perspective entirely. This selective application of the "no uterus, no opinion" argument reveals its disingenuous nature. It is not about whether a man has a uterus—it is about whether his opinion aligns with the pro-choice agenda.
A Logical and Ethical Disparity
This double standard exposes a fundamental flaw in the "no uterus, no opinion" argument. If men’s opinions on abortion are invalid because they lack a uterus, then logically, no man—pro-life or pro-choice—should be allowed to voice an opinion on the matter. The fact that pro-choice men are welcomed into the conversation while pro-life men are shunned demonstrates that the argument is not about biology or lived experience. It is a rhetorical tool designed to silence dissent.
Imagine applying this double standard to other issues. Would we dismiss male doctors who specialize in gynecology or obstetrics simply because they lack a uterus? Would we reject male lawmakers who draft policies related to women's health? Of course not. Expertise and ethical reasoning are not dependent on anatomy.
The Biblical Perspective
From a Biblical standpoint, this inconsistency is even more troubling. Scripture calls all believers, regardless of gender, to defend the innocent and stand for justice. Proverbs 31:8-9 commands us to "speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." Nowhere does the Bible suggest that only women can fulfill this calling when it comes to defending the unborn.
Moreover, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for all people. Men and women alike are called to uphold God’s standard of righteousness and proclaim His truth. To suggest that men cannot have a voice in matters of life and death because of their gender is contrary to the Biblical mandate for believers to be salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13-16).
Addressing the Contradiction
This part of the blog series aims to equip readers to recognize and address this double standard when it arises. When faced with the "no uterus, no opinion" argument, here are a few points to consider:
Highlight the Inconsistency: Ask why pro-choice men are celebrated for their opinions while pro-life men are silenced. This alone exposes the weakness of the argument.
Shift the Focus: Redirect the conversation to the moral and ethical issue at hand—the life of the unborn. Anatomy does not determine the validity of an argument.
Stand on Truth: As a Christian abolitionist, ground your response in the Word of God. Remind others that justice and truth transcend gender and that all believers are called to defend the vulnerable.
This double standard is not just illogical; it is a deliberate attempt to control the narrative. By exposing its flaws, we can reclaim the conversation and stand firmly for the abolition of abortion.