A friend posted an image in a private FaceBook group that I am in. It was originally posted on the wall of a friend of a friend of hers (follow?)
The picture was attributed to a group called “Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists!” and while I can appreciate the sentiment, there are some bits that I find challenging.
Before I continue I need to share: I am a very linear thinker. This makes me good at math and science and pretty crappy at the touchy-feely things. I can usually “see” the other person’s point of view, but I do find it hard to empathize with that point of view. In my mind, if A=B and B=Q, then A=Q. That little equation will come back later, so be sure to remember it, ya dig?
Back to the message. So, according to this group, the following things “belong” in a uterus:
- IUDs
- babies
- hormones
The following things do NOT “belong” in a uterus:
- religion
- laws
- men
- “persons”
- misplaced moral outrage
The reproductive function of the uterus is to accept a fertilized ovum which passes through the utero-tubal junction from the fallopian tube. It implants into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels which develop exclusively for this purpose. The fertilized ovum becomes an embryo, attaches to a wall of the uterus, creates a placenta, and develops into a fetus (gestates) until childbirth.
So… biologically, the only things that “belong” in a uterus would be:
- a fertilized ovum: most fertilization takes place in the fallopian tubes and requires the presence of sperm, so we could technically say that sperm belongs there from time to time.
- the endometrium: this is shed monthly as a female’s menstrual period, provided there is no fertilized ovum.
- blood vessels
- an embryo
- a placenta: which does produce hormones
- a fetus: which isn’t technically a “baby” until childbirth. The fetal stage of prenatal development is from the 9th week after fertilization (11 weeks from Last Menstrual Period) until childbirth.
Given all of this, we can concur with their image that only hormones belong in the uterus. They don’t specify endogenous or exogenous hormones, but I am going to say endogenous hormones, because those are the ones your body makes naturally. IUDs… don’t really belong in a uterus. After all, it’s either a piece of copper or a piece of plastic and hormones. I don’t think plastic nor copper belongs in the uterus, do you? As far as “Babies” go, babies are developmentally fetuses until childbirth, so babies don’t belong in the uterus either.
Let’s take a closer look at what doesn’t belong there:
- religion: fair enough. There are so many different religions with differing opinions that it would be painful to try to cram all of those ideologies into a uterus. But at the same time, that would mean that Religious Organizations would have to cease supporting women and children… so St. Vincent de Paul (besides the usual thrift store ware, SVdP also provides assistance in paying bills to low/ no-income individuals,) church food pantries, Religion-affilitated hospitals and the like should turn women away because we don’t want religion and women to mix.
- laws: since laws do not belong in the uterus, that means that all laws protecting abortion rights, equal access to healthcare, sexual assault (OK, technically that should be vagina,) and material/ maternity rights, including right to work, should be stricken from the books?
- Men: hmmm. Well, men are humans that carry an XY pair of chromosomes. Are they saying that all male children should be terminated? Of course, I am being facetious. I believe that the creator of this image is saying that the opinions of men do not count in the realm of women’s reproductive health. So, you better fire your male OB and stop listening to the opinions of your husband/ boyfriend/ father because, you know, they don’t count, because they don’t have a uterus. (sarcasm) At the same time, if your mom, grandma, favorite aunt, best friend, MIL or any other women you know have had a hysterectomy, you better stop listening to them too, because they don’t have a uterus anymore either. (/sarcasm)
- “Persons”: this is probably my favorite. This, I believe, is referring to the “Personhood Amendments” that some states have tried to pass as a way to make abortion, some forms of birth control and/ or IVF inaccessible. The basic thought is to assign the title of “person” to an embryo and fetus, giving them human rights and making abortion and some forms of birth control akin to homicide as it would involve the termination of life of a person. The idea of personhood does get sticky when considering IVF and the freezing of embryos. What rights, if any, should an embryo or fetus have? But here is where the logic breaks down for me: If an Enbryo/Fetus/Baby is a human (because it’s part of the human species) and a human is a person, wouldn’t that follow that an Enbryo/Fetus/Baby is a Person?
- Misplaced Moral Outrage: This is one of those abstract ideas that my mind doesn’t wrap well around. If you have any insights as to what “misplaced moral outrage” is, please share!
In the end, the image served its purpose. It’s hip and gritty and I actually like the style of the photograph (LOVE the stark contrast and black and white.) It kind of generated discussion (on the original post) as much as a FaceBook image posting could. It is novel and creative, even if it lacks a bit of logic/ technical knowledge. I, obviously, do not agree with it, but I surely give it an A+ for creativity.
So the $10,000 question: Why did I spend the last 40 minutes of my life writing a post about this image?
Easy. My house needs cleaning and I don’t want to do it.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t forget to enter the Fluffy Wishes Giveaway! It runs through July 24th!! Happy Entering!!
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Well, since MY house also needs cleaning and I don’t want to do it, I’ll take a few moments to reply to further distract you from the chore that you and I are both avoiding
LOL at too many religions to fit into a uterus
This image is quite silly, in my opinion. First, it contradicts itself by including ‘baby’ in the uterus category but then puts ‘persons’ in the non uterus category…last time I checked, babies were people. I believe that if they were trying to prove a point against personhood amendments, they should have at least taken the time to change ‘baby’ to ‘zygote/embryo/fetus’.
And agreed on the laws sentiment…there are many laws that protect one’s ‘uterus’, so women would be ill advised to dismiss all laws from uterus territory. Did this artist forget about Roe v. Wade? Pretty sure they’d be on board with that law.
As far as the misplaced moral outrage, I am assuming this is referring to women thinking that people who are frustrated with the ‘moral degradation of society’ place the blame on women. To an extent, this is true as many of the moral arguments present in today’s discussion center around issues involving women (i.e. abortion, birth control access, sexual violence, sexual ‘promiscuity’ for a lack of better term, etc.). However, I would say that this image does little more than to ‘preach to the choir’ of women (and men) who believe that this represents a valid feminist argument. As a feminist myself, I find it to be quite narrow minded and really not effective for changing people’s minds. By using the term ‘belongs’, it’s kind of ironic that they are saying they don’t want anyone telling people what to do with their uterus, yet they are projecting that uteri are for IUDs, babies, and hormones (I’m assuming they mean exogenous in this context), none of which are universal ‘wants’ for all women.
All I see when I look at that poster is “what belongs: whatever I want, whenver I want” and “what doesn’t belong: anything that might make me feel guilty about doing whatever I want whenever I want without regard for the feelings of other, God’s will, or unborn children and other natural consequences”
Well I can tell you that whenever I feel moral outrage, it’s definitely at uteruses (uteri?). Oh wait, that’s only when I have really bad cramps… yea, I really didn’t get the misplaced moral outrage – no one is hating on the uterus, we are trying to love on the uterus!
When I saw that “men” didn’t belong in a uterus, I found it very confusing. Where did these supposed babies come from, since IVF implements also was not listed?
the argument there was that since the penis does not penetrate into the uterus, there should be no men there, either physically or figuratively.(Baby Boys are not considered men.)