Letter: Men need to stop offering their ‘expertise’ on abortion rights

By Letter to the Editor on June 30, 2022.

Dear Mr. Weekly Cultural Anthropology,

I disagree with you about abortion and believe that if you *truly* understood or cared about the issue at hand, you would be able to reflect that as a man, this is not your conversation to have.

Before you respond with an archaic argument about “equality,” or whatever “what about”-ism you have stashed in your drum case, I would like to reflect on the age old adage of, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

Your words carry weight, and in this situation, are harmful for no reason other than needing to be right, or perhaps educate us poor, confused females. Women are hurting right now, and frankly, reading another male-written op-ed that reminds us, “It’s not emotional, it’s just up to the states now,” or “I support abortion as long as it didn’t come from a woman being promiscuous *GASP THE HORROR*”, or even, “Well this has an impact on my wife and daughter so I understand it’s important,” does not change anything for people with a uterus, and in fact, is a cruel reminder that another quasi-intellectual actually thinks “they get it” and we just need to “stop being so emotional.”

That being said let me highlight some facts that were missed, or just wrongly stated in your piece.

“Their [The Supreme Court’s] entire job has to be about pure law beyond feelings or opinions: how federal laws could be reasonably interpreted in Medicine Hat, across the entire province of Ontario, or both.”

The Supreme Court that has recently passed anti-abortion rulings does not operate in Canada, as you very well know. This comparison is irrelevant and seems to be written as such, “Medicine Hat v. Ontario” to illicit emotional reactions in the favour of your argument, which ironically, is that emotions don’t matter here.

“Conservatives are mostly pro-life when it comes to the unborn.”

Once again, you are equating the Conservative Party of Canada with the Republican Party in the U.S., and are also statistically wrong. Recent data published by the NPR and funded by the federal government states that only 31 per cent of Republicans are in favour of overturning Roe V Wade, as opposed to the 59 per cent of Republicans that believe Roe v Wade should be upheld.

“I don’t like the idea of people randomly getting abortions to negate the effects of promiscuity.”

This is irrelevant.

“I am pro-choice, especially for medically endangered women, and victims of incest or sexual assault.”

Once again, irrelevant, unnecessarily combative and completely missing the female understanding that if women cannot access abortions for pregnancies resulting from consensual sex, they *are* medically endangered.

Any woman unable to dictate her own bodily needs is a medically endangered person. Period.

“Women have not been legislating away our male bodily autonomy like we have theirs for millennia. We must return the favour.”

I actually agree with you here! Now, are you able to equate that with, “Men have been legislating away women’s bodily autonomy for millennia and we should take it upon ourselves to stop writing articles about it as if we are experts?'”

“This is not about promiscuity.”

Then why bring it up earlier in your article if not to cruelly remind women that although it doesn’t matter, your opinion does?

“A speck of goo in a woman’s body cannot do your taxes, or prefer blueberry pie.”

From implantation to eight weeks, it’s called an embryo, and after eight weeks, it is called a fetus.

Using improper terminology like “speck of goo” is detrimental to women’s rights in the pro-choice sphere. It is emotional, and as you have proven in your article, emotions are the crux of women having equal rights.

Before you take it upon yourself to publish next week’s piece with the title, “The Human Condition: The Right to Disagree,” and use my words as an excuse to further validate your Devil’s Advocacy riddled opinions, I suggest you seriously look inward.

May I recommend having discussions with women that you didn’t personally impregnate, are not your own child who depends on you, and perhaps (GASP) are still free enough to enjoy promiscuity?

Yours, a person with a uterus.

Elizabeth Duncan

Medicine Hat

27
-26