My right to speak out should not be based on this (or my lack thereof).

When your worth is measured by your uterus

An anonymous person, known only as “ma am”, has posted a petition on for “Personhood for Women.”  If 1,000 people sign (over 3,000 already have), ma am will deliver this petition to three selected Senators – Patty Murray, Al Franken, and Kristen GIllibrand – and ask them to introduce the following to Congress:

A person identifying as a woman and/or having a uterus shall retain all of the full, basic, and fundamental rights of a US citizen as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Congress and the States shall make no law that infringes upon a person’s life, including but not limited to access to life-saving or life-improving healthcare, and/or medicines and procedures deemed necessary or beneficial by a medical professional and/or by the person having the uterus, procurement of which shall not be denied in and of itself by the presence of a uterus. Congress and the States shall make no law that infringes upon a person’s liberty, including but not limited to autonomy over hir own body and the ability to make decisions regarding hir own healthcare. Congress and the States shall make no law that interferes with a person’s pursuit of happiness, including but not limited to access to a full spectrum of reproductive options, freedom from forcible reproduction, and the ability to make decisions regarding family planning and family resources.

I am not defined by my uterus, just as I am not defined by any other organ in my body. Also, a uterus is very different from the next picture in this article.

Not so fast.  There are more than a few problems with this attempt at legislation.  For starters, why are only women or people “having a uterus” deserving of the “access to life-saving or life-improving healthcare”?  In addition, though I would fit into both categories neatly covered by this proposal, I don’t care to have my worth and my “rights” measured by either my gender or whether or not I have a uterus.  Naturally, I’m all for women being recognized as “persons” by our government.  But if you haven’t noticed, we already are.   We already have all the same legal rights as men do; the 19th Amendment and certain anti-discrimination laws finished elevating us to an equal position, legally speaking, quite some time ago.

In fact, one of my main problems with this ill thought out proposal is that women currently have one certain right that surpasses any right a man thought he may have had to protect his child.  The right to a free, no holds barred, get-it-anytime-you-want abortion.  Fathers’ hands are tied.  There’s absolutely nothing they can do in the law to stop their child’s mother (whether she’s their wife, girlfriend, or a one night stand) from killing their child.  One of the saddest stories I’ve ever read details the anguish that many fathers go through because they have NO CHOICE.

I’ve personally worked on a case, trying to help a husband stop his wife from aborting a child they planned to have.  But guess what, since the judge didn’t want to step away from precedent, that dad just had to sit back and let his wife kill the child they had wanted.  Kinda stinks to be a man, if you ask me.

In addition, this proposal specifically mentions the Declaration of Independence.  That’s actually rare to see in current proposed law.  Usually, it’s the Constitution that’s referred to, not the Declaration.  I applaud ma am for seeing the value of the Declaration, unlike many current citizens.  However she  has overlooked an important section that just so happens to come right before the section of rights she discusses (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).  The Declaration specifically states that all men (i.e., humans) are “created equal.”  Uh huh.  That’s right.  Created equal, not born equal.  BIIIIIG difference.  Science pointedly spells out for us when the moment of creation occurs, for each unique individual.  And the Declaration is very clear that each created person deserves the equal right to life.

Here’s another problem.  The proposal states, “healthcare…shall not be denied in and of itself  by the presence of a uterus.”  Laugh out loud.  I mean, seriously.  I don’t think ANYONE wants to stop abortion because women have a uterus.  The only time abortion and a uterus are connected is when a baby is being sucked out of a uterus.  And that presents something far different than just a uterus.  Then, we’re talking about a BABY.  Another human being (if you want to refer to science); a created life (if you want to refer to the Declaration of Independence); a unique, living individual (if you want to refer to a recent federal court case).  So yeah, pro-lifers aren’t targeting women because they have a uterus.  We’re not targeting women at all.  Goodness, many of us are women or are married to women who we love (i.e., my husband, my father, and my brother.)

What we’re doing is trying to speak out for the greatest right of all for those who cannot speak for themselves.  Sorry, women, but a baby’s right to life is just a little bit more important that your right to convenience.

I am not a uterus. Though I may live in one for a little bit of time, I am a unique person.

If you want complete control over your bodies, women, maybe you should stop having sex with men who treat you badly or who don’t want to be fathers.  Maybe you should wait to have sex until you’re ready to be a mother (because, if you’ve studied science at all, motherhood can certainly result after sex).  Sidenote here:  you are a mother as soon as you are pregnant, not as soon as you give birth.  Thus, when you choose abortion, you do not choose to “not be a mother.”  You choose to kill the child whose mother you already are.

Maybe you should wait to have sex until you’re in a committed marriage relationship.  And maybe, just maybe, you should realize that with “control” also comes “responsibility”.  If you make the choice to have sex, you also take on the responsibility that comes with that sex.  If you get pregnant, you have a responsibility to see that your baby experiences her right to life—whether you raise her yourself or give her to a loving couple who can.

Finally, if “Personhood for Women” is all about who has a uterus, can someone please explain to me why female babies can be freely aborted?  Their uterus develops before birth, after all…

  • Oedipa Mossmoon

    I think you’re missing the satirical nature of some of these measures. This is obviously meant to mock the “personhood” laws that your side would triumph. Take the lawmaker in Ohio who has filed legislation that would mandate men seeking Viagra see a sex therapist before getting the mediaction. Or the Virginia proposal that Viagra require a prostate exam. I think you can see where those are going, too.

  • Justcuz

    Okay, I’m not a big advocate for viagra, however there is a huge difference between that and an abortion.  First is the obvious – ending one life for the convenience of another.  Second – Viagra in theory atleast, restores a natural function of the male human body.  Abortion destroys the natural human body of either a male or female and undermines the natural functioning of the mother.  In fact the abrupt ending of a pregnancy, especially in a female who has not had a prior live birth, has been shown to increase her health risks substantially – especially for breast cancer.

    • 12angry_men

      You really have to be careful how you argue, as with that reasoning people could say that abortion can be seen as restoring a body’s natural process as a woman’s body causes miscarriages all the time, most of the time without her even knowing (not saying I believe that, but by your reasoning one could logically come to that conclusion).

      • Justcuz

        I understand. However, pregnancy is not a malfunction of the natural state. (Erectile dysfunction)  Pregnant is a natrual state of womanhood, just as much as non-pregnant is.  Therefore, in an abortion you are destroying one natural state for one person to eventually regain a different natural state.  In the meantime, the life of another has been terminated.  I know the danger of being able to complete this train of logic in short sound bites and with those not interested in a dialogue.  However, I maintian comparing viagra to abortions is like comparing apples to golf balls.  Further more, an abortion is as much like a miscarriage as a gun shot is like an embolism. 

  • 12angry_men

    I hope that you don’t think the author of this law was being serious. As had been said in the comments, the nature of this measure is solely satirical. Therefore why is there a need to analyze it when even the creator of the measure wasn’t being serious? 

  • Wade Felty

    Well Kristi when the Teapublicans make you into a living breeding machine, you have no one to thank but yourself.

    • Elise77

      YES, because the “Teapublicans” might herd her off to a big farm somewhere and put her in a stall and impregnate her by force at regular intervals for the rest of her breeding life, then take her out back and shoot her when she’s outlived her usefulness. Because that’s TOTALLY what we’re talking about here, and it has NOTHING to do with women living up to their responsibilities as sexually active people.
      I guess when we advocate for better enforcement for child support laws we’re “making men into living ATM’s.”
      Or doesn’t it go both ways?
      Gee, I thought the point was “equality”…

      • Wade Felty

        I hope you do everything perfect in your life and never have a dangerous pregnancy!

  • Kristiburtonbrown

    Honestly, the point is not whether these kind of people are serious in their proposals or not.  The point is that their THINKING is seriously flawed.  Their proposals, jokes, mockeries, amendments–or whatever you want to call them–demonstrate hypocritical thinking.  And this is how they really think.  They try to convince others who are on the fence to think like them.  Thus, this is why people like me discuss their thinking =)

  • Sarah M

    “When you choose abortion, you do not choose to “not be a mother.”  You choose to kill the child whose mother you already are.” A hard truth but all too true. Thanks for the post.

    • Lasergirl4

       No you are not. You are a mother when you give birth. All the rest of the sentimental goo this woman posts as truth is utter nonsense. Only from the religiously deluded crowd. Wow.

  • talonspoint

    Logic is a beautiful thing

  • lesliemj

    Jesus forgive us for our sins.
    Fetal body parts used for reseach
    Opening Lines Fee for Services Schedule
     > age greater than
      8 weeks) $ 70
     Unprocessed Specimen (< 8 weeks) $ 50
     Livers ( 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $125
     Spleens ( 8 weeks) $ 50
     Pancreas ( 8 weeks) $ 75
     Thymus ( 8 weeks) $ 75
     Intestines & Mesentery $ 50
     Mesentery ( 8 weeks) $100
     Kidney-with/without adrenal ( 8 weeks) $100
     Limbs (at least 2) $150
     Brain ( 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $150
     Pituitary Gland (> 8 weeks) $300
     Bone Marrow ( 8 weeks) $250
     Ears ( 8 weeks) $ 50
     Eyes ( 8 weeks) 40% discount for single eye $ 50
     Skin (> 12 weeks) $100
     Lungs & Heart Block $150
     Intact Embryonic Cadaver ( 8 weeks) $600
     Intact Calvarium $125
     Intact Trunk (with/without limbs) $500
     Gonads $550
     Cord Blood (Snap Frozen LN2) $125
     Spinal Column $150
     Spinal Cord $325

  • StephanieRose

    I read the story you said was one of the saddest, by the Father, and it was heartbreaking! I cant handle the terror of abortion sometimes, my only comfort is that they are in the arms of Jesus

  • Lasergirl4

    Maybe you should stop telling other people what to do.l Maybe you should imagine that you do not have all the answers. Maybe you should realize that many abortions are performed for women in committed marriages – but who cannot emotionally or financially care for another child. Maybe you should read more from that Savior you like to spout off about – you know the one that said judge not, lest ye be judged. Maybe you should stop telling women when they become mothers – cause I have to tell you honey, every month we abort the eggs that could become human – if only given a bit of sperm and a little time. Shall we tell our 12 year old daughters that each month they become mothers and each month they become murderers? Maybe you should sit down, shut up and pay attention to that beam in your own eye honey. 

  • thecatandtheladder

    Something that you fail to see is abortions aren’t administered once the fetus is viable. So up until that point, that fetus is part of the mother. If she doesn’t feel she is ready to have a child, emotionally or financially, then you should’t intrude on that right. Even being sexually responsible and using protection isn’t always a fail-safe. It’s not a child until it’s viable, and before you start saying it became a child once fertilization, I suggest you look at some medical books. YOU may consider it a child, but it isn’t until it is viable outside of the womb. And please, before you worry about the lives of unborn fetuses, why not place your focus on the many children in need of parents.