The lefty women who are tweeting that men shouldn't be allowed opinions on abortion because they don't have uteruses and thus cannot become pregnant are insulting "transwomen" as well as expressing ill-informed opinions of their own.  I'll leave it to women who call themselves men to address the bigotry.  I'll point out some obvious flaws in their reasoning.

First, every mentally alert human forms opinions.  They don't all develop the same opinions.  Like religions, opinions account for different datasets in trying to understand the universe.  We reason from the data we perceive and the personal biases we have accumulated over the course of our lives.  It is important to discuss opinions in order to share information because no one knows everything.  A free market of ideas might eventually, however asymptotically, approach reality and provide a basis for rational decisions.  If we don't allow someone to speak, we shouldn't be surprised if he declines to listen.

Second, there is the assertion that anti-abortion laws are intended to give men ownership or control of women's bodies.  The laws don't forbid or specify rules for anything most women can do.  If a woman exercises control of her body such that she never becomes pregnant, the laws against abortions are irrelevant, just as they are for men, in regard to controlling women's bodies.

Third, a restriction on one activity hardly constitutes "ownership."  If it does, then any law at all becomes ownership.  Should laws against all forms of murder, theft, fraud, speeding, etc. be repealed?  I won't miss laws requiring payment of taxes, but some of the other laws allow a large society to function.

The paranoid can worry that laws preventing abortion are part of a slippery slope leading to mandatory pregnancy for the fertile, perhaps with a dash of eugenics applied.  Similarly, there can be concerns that laws legalizing abortion will become laws requiring abortion, with eugenics again playing a part.  The crucial difference is that abortion kills a human being.

Someone opined that a fetus is not a baby.  That's not the point.  A human fetus is a human being.  The legal definition of "baby" is irrelevant.  Killing a human being who isn't an imminent threat to your actual life (not just the quality thereof) is generally illegal.  If your boss fires you or your significant other dumps you, it affects your quality of life for a while, but it isn't legal to kill him.  Nor should it be.  That would convert all our relationships to forms of slavery far worse than being a handmaid in some fictitious dystopia.

If you don't want to risk pregnancy, it's easily avoided.  If you get pregnant and don't want to be a parent, give the baby up for adoption.  If you're concerned that the baby will wind up in foster care and be unloved, consider that he may alternatively be adopted by a loving couple who raise him as their own child.

One way or another, children are affected by parental decisions.  Rent-a-kids used to shortcut the immigration asylum process are grievously traumatized but may, given some counseling, work their way through the pain and get over it.  They'll at least have a chance.

Shouldn't all our children have a chance at a wonderful life?

Sam can be reached at syounnokis@gmail.com.