Alright, I normally don’t like to link to articles that I don’t personally endorse, but to understand the context, you may have to read this link. WARNING – there are articles and images on there that may offend you, including immodesty.
Nevertheless, I wondered about the headline “Congressional Birth Control Hearing Involves Exactly Zero People Who Have a Uterus.” The headline alone is thought-provoking. The article generally outlines a story about a congressional hearing concerning birth control/abstinence/religious rights, etc. It is a typical instance of multiple Americans arguing that perceived rights are being violated. As is typical in a society which has no single ultimate authority, the result is that at any given time – your religious rights or mine will appear to be violated by a law intended to legislate morality. Think about it: A religion could be started tomorrow where adults have intercourse with children as part of a ritual. They followers would immediately claim that the “state” is stepping on the religious toes by prohibiting sex with children. This is the absurd case (not for long, I’m afraid will this be considered absurd), but sometimes you need to look at the extreme to be able to evaluate where you think a precedent or an argument will logically lead you.
My main question I want to ask is: Is it a valid or reasonable point that “only men” were discussing this issue? That is, does the author make a case which is logically sound whereby we should re-evaluate how this particular hearing should’ve been conducted (and thus, future hearings)?
What I want to caution you about, dear brother or sister, is immediately jumping into an argument without thinking about it biblically. Using the “don’t answer/answer” strategy from Proverbs 26:4-5, I am going to try to show you how I view the entire ordeal.
Proverbs 26 4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Let’s start with the “Answer not” portion. Folks, you do not need to respond to this accusation. There is no merit in the idea that a “lawmaker” must have some level of participation in the application of the law. That is essentially what is being said here. By this notion, no one over 18 should establish curfews for anyone under 18. Utter senselessness. Whether or not a contraceptive is moral or government subsidization of them is constitutional is independent of “who it theoretically affects.” If someone disagrees, my stance is that the burden of proof would be on them to exhibit why we should believe that is the case.
Which brings us to the last step: “Answer a fool…” In this step what I would propose is that anyone who feels that only people with a uterus should make laws concerning contraception and government funding of contraception must be willing to apply the logic to other laws. This is where we say, “assuming you’re correct … ” one logical conclusion is that only pre-born humans should make laws concerning abortion, or at least they should be “part of the process.” It is obviously absurd to think that the very people that oppose a law are somehow rightfully the people who should be making it. The problem isn’t the laws or who makes them, but rather, from where the law is derived. Laws derived from human intuition and wisdom will be inherently failing, while laws derived from God’s Word will be innately offensive to the secular community, those who walk by the flesh.
So relax, if you were worried. There is no argument that a man (or woman) can give which will be logically valid and contradict God’s Word. That is exactly why incendiary and explosive language and headlines are needed to get attention and pull heartstrings. Be discerning, dear reader, and make sure everything lines up with scripture.