Stay out of my uterus! - Exploring what this phrase actually means

© 2019 Jim Spence -  “Stay out of my uterus!”
It is a catchy phrase that actually seems quite libertarian on the surface. Recently, I heard this phrase used. Foolishly, I decided to explore what was meant by the declaration, “Stay out of my uterus.”
The young lady who uttered the phrase offered a seemingly simple explanation. Her explanation began with a very coherent defense of birth control rights. With no interest in re-litigating Roe vs. Wade, I decided to get right to the heart of the matter and see how far she might go in defending limitless abortion rights.
"When should abortion not be allowed?" I asked. "When is it too late?"
At first, she tossed out the third trimester as a logical boundary. I nodded and repeated her suggestion that there should be no abortions allowed after the six months of pregnancy. If she had agreed with the limit she set, it could have ended the discussion. It didn't.
Instead, there was a sudden serious hesitation. It seemed like some sort of a trap had been set for her.
She backtracked and allowed that under certain circumstances, it was acceptable to abort a baby after six months.
When she had finally finished hemming and hawing, I again tried to get to the crux of the matter. I asked her if she had ever heard of Kermit Gosnell. She hadn’t. It was not surprising she had not heard of him. The media has many filters in place to screen out anything that hurts their narrative preference on all abortions. The Kermit Gosnell case was censored away from the typical spoon-fed public view, by the national mainstream media, simply because the facts of the case were so sobering. The acts of Gosnell could make any reasonable person engage in a serious reconsideration of their demand that there be zero limitations on abortion.
Since she had never heard of him, I explained that Gosnell was a Philadelphia abortionist who was currently in prison for life without parole for the murder of infants who were actually born alive. At first, she recoiled in horror at the idea that anyone would kill babies. She agreed that if Gosnell broke the law, he deserved to go to prison.
I reminded her that in most late-term abortions, the babies’ skulls are crushed with forceps by the abortionists. Horrifically, the testimony in the Gosnell trial revealed that when his baby targets were not killed in the womb or in the birth canal via skull crushing, Gosnell simply snuffed out their lives with surgical scissors. To kill them once and for all, he slashed their spinal cords. Yes, Gosnell did these things while the babies were alive on the abortion table. When I explained these facts to her, she definitely agreed Gosnell belonged in jail.
Then came the tricky part. I advised her that there were several Democrat-dominated states including New York, that had recently passed laws that essentially made what Gosnell did a few years ago, legal today.
“How do you feel about those people who passed those laws?” I asked.
She quickly became uncomfortable. She knew she had to choose between legal and moral, so after some hesitation she surmised the following: “If the voters elected those people legally, and they passed those laws legally, then.......it is legal because it is the law,” she said.
Astonished, I asked her how she felt about the morality of the law, not the legality.
She realized at this point that those Democrats who would go so far in defending her uterus rights as to support infanticide, were now going to be required to be branded as "immoral." She simply couldn’t make herself do it.
Intellectually she was trapped, so she struck out at me, and inferred that I was making her out to be insensitive and evil.
In a feeble attempt to find common ground, I reminded her of her original suggestion regarding a third trimester limit, and asked her to simply say if not after the second trimester, to say at what point that she thought that it was simply too late for an abortion procedure, because of the life and health of the baby.
She just stared at me.
I tried to help her with suggestions of various stages of the baby's development. Would it be fair enough to ban these procedures after six months? Her answer was, "Nope." How about after seven months? "Nope," she repeated. How about after eight months?.....Nope.
She had had enough. In an effort to shut me up, she said that even at the end of the ninth month, it was OK to abort a baby.
And with that, the seemingly libertarian concept of saying, “Stay out of my uterus,” had morphed into the idea that all abortions should be legal, even after the delivery. Essentially, if the baby had survived all efforts to kill it, in states where the Democrats passed laws saying it was legal to kill it, abortionists could kill it if the mother had demanded it be killed. If a baby made it to the abortion table and out of the womb as they sometimes do, just kill it then and there. But call it a "legal abortion," instead of an illegal murder.
Shocked that this discussion would end with murder being advocated, I crassly suggested that people who thought like her should be rounded up and shot with AK-47’s.
Oddly, it was at this point, that my feigned advocacy of murder, simply to make the point, finally struck home. Completely missing the irony of such an absurd statement, especially within the context of our discussion of baby killing, she was deeply offended by the AK-47 crack, and she stomped off. She was clearly furious at my feigned views on murder, while still content with her actual views on murder.
As I contemplated this exchange, I was reminded of my reading of the words of William Wilberforce. Back in England in 1791, after he submitted mountains of factual testimony regarding the human horrors of the slave trade, and then argued for an end to legalized slavery. He said:
“You may choose to look the other way," he said, "But you can never say again that you did not know.”
The vast majority of self-described progressive thinkers truly understand the fundamental nature of infanticide. Incredibly, when confronted with alarming facts and truths, they find it more comforting to simply look the other way on the horrors of infanticide. The term “Stay out of my uterus” seems to actually mean......"If Democrats pass laws making it legal to deliberately kill babies in the birth canal or on the abortion table, it is justifiable." Even uterine sympathy goes straight out the window. Half of all babies killed in late-term and post-birth abortions are female. The "stay out of my uterus" argument can be reduced even further. Only "the demands" of the larger persons on the late-term abortion table are are to be honored, despite the fact that 1/2 those being killed are merely smaller human beings. They may have a uterus, but they have no rights.
Most of this is just as I suspected. It never had anything to do with protecting the uterus.
Share/Bookmark