Uterus Exceptionalism (Part I)

Poor 'Pro-life' Argument #4

Aug 18, 2025

This two-part series on uterus exceptionalism, is brought to you by the generosity, partnership, and support of rePro-Truth's amazing subscribers.

For more more analysis of poor “pro-life” arguments, click here.

Donate to Support My Work

Thanks for reading rePro-Truth! This post is free to all, so feel free to share it.

Poor ‘Pro-Life’ Argument #4, Part I

Anti-choicers told themselves that if fertilized eggs, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses were legal persons with the same rights as you and me, then abortion would automatically be prohibited. They hadn't considered the fact that no legal persons have a right to be inside of other people without their consent or have a right to use other people - their whole or their parts - as life support against their will, not even to stay alive. A legal person‘s right to life does not include a right to another person's blood, organs, or bone marrow, nor another person’s cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, urinary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and metabolic systems.

So, the antis are slowly starting to catch on to the reality that, despite their opportunistic appeals to the lofty liberal ideals of justice, rights, and equality, their illiberal Fetal Personhood ideology is built on the very opposite of those ideals.

Fetal Personhood ideology is founded upon inequality and supremacy. It's built on antis’ desire to give super-rights to one group of persons - the “unborn” - because the antis merely like that group of persons more than they like the rest of us born folks. Under this system of fetal supremacy, all current and future fetuses get special rights to control and dominate all the former-fetuses of the world. But as soon as those current and future fetuses become former-fetuses by virtue of being born, they lose their unborn privilege and join the rest of us post-birth-people as members of the underclass. It's a real bummer.

So, the ideologues of inequality have come up with an answer: uterus exceptionalism. It's yet another poor “pro-life” argument.

Under uterus exceptionalism, antis think they can both acknowledge that no legal person can use or be inside of another person without consent, while also excluding the uterus - and only the uterus - from this broad rule. They attempt to do this in several ways:

By insisting the uterus is not actually like the rest if the human body or its parts.
By insisting the uterus only exists for others’ use.
By insisting a person’s uterus doesn't actually belong to that person.
By reducing the use of one person's body by another during pregnancy to the occupation of a single organ.

Consider the following examples.

“[A] uterus is unlike a kidney in that a uterus is housing.”1
“Uteri are designed specifically for babies, like nature itself granted babies uteri, during their fetal stage.”2
“The uterus belongs [to] the baby, it’s not the same as bone marrow. It prepares itself once a month to house a baby [and] serves literally no function [to] the mother.”3
“A woman's [uterus] is different from tissue, organs, or blood — it exists for the baby. Each month, the uterus prepares for someone else's body.”4
“The nature and purpose of the uterus is that it is an organ in my body different from all my other body parts in that it exists more for my offspring than it does for me.”5

Uterus exceptionalism arguments are grounded in several fallacies. In this article, Part I of this two-part series on uterus exceptionalism, we'll examine two of the fallacies: (1) that the uterus is exceptionally different from organs; and (2) that the uterus doesn't actually belong to the person it is within.

Give a gift subscription

The Uterus is More Than a Reproductive Organ

Antis frame the uterus as a separate entity from the person: This dormant womb entity, which has no purpose outside of reproduction and provides no health benefits to the womb holder, comes to life once a month to prepare itself to house a fetus bootstrapping its way through human development.

This framing reflects a child-like understanding of human anatomy.

X post by anti-rights group Students for Life of America

In reality, “the uterus is a dynamic and complex organ central to female reproductive health.”6 While the uterus is a reproductive organ, “its roles extend beyond this, impacting overall health and disease states related to endocrine, immune, cardiovascular, neurological, and metabolic systems.”7

“The uterus provides structural integrity and support to the bladder, bowel, pelvic bones and organs as well. It separates the bladder and the bowels. The networks of blood vessels and nerves of the uterus direct the blood flow to the pelvis and to the external genitalia, including the ovaries, vagina, labia, and clitoris for sexual response. The uterus is needed for uterine orgasm to occur.”8 Additionally, research indicates that the removal of the uterus affects spatial working memory and reference memory, suggesting that the uterus plays a role in regulating cognition.91011

“The difference between the female reproductive system and other organs lies in the way [culture] has invested societal values in the former.”12

When antis declare that the uterus exists more for embryos and fetuses than it does for the person with the uterus;13 or that the uterus “serves literally no function” for the person with the uterus;14 or that “a uterus is unlike a kidney in that a uterus is housing,” antis are either physiologically ignorant or they are expressing a value judgement — an assessment of something's worth, quality, or desirability based on a set of personal or societal values, rather than objective facts1516 — by ranking the reproductive functions of the uterus (fetal-centric) above its other functions (person-centric).

This value judgement-based argument is intended to conceal the (person-centric) functions of the uterus that impact their “overall health and disease states related to endocrine, immune, cardiovascular, neurological, and metabolic systems.”17 Only by concealing these important functions can antis make the case for uterus exceptionalism: that the uterus is different from other organs18 and, therefore, people are free to use other people’s uteruses as life support against their wills and without consent.19

But the uterus isn't exceptional; it's one organ among many. It's a structure in the human body made out of several types of tissues and cells that is a part of a broader system of organs that work together to carry out processes that keep us healthy and alive. Just because the uterus is classified as a “reproductive organ” doesn't mean that the uterus is not an organ.

Just because the uterus is classified as a “reproductive organ” doesn't mean that it doesn't perform important functions outside of reproduction.

Just because the uterus is classified as a “reproductive organ” doesn't mean other people get to use it without consent.

No persons have a right to be inside of or use other people’s reproductive organs without their consent. Not even the uterus.

Tip rePro-Truth!

“Okay, okay. No one is allowed use other people’s uteruses,” an anti might seemingly concede, only to follow that concession with, “BUT the uterus doesn't belong to the person in whom it is located. It belongs to the baaayyybeee!” This brings us to the next uterus exceptionalism fallacy…

Occupation ≠ Ownership

According to Fetal Personhood ideology, I became a person at fertilization. After replicating a few cells and floating through my mom's reproductive tract, egg-me latched myself onto the wall of my mom's uterus. Unbeknownst to her, the little egg-me then proceeded to burrow down inside of the wall of her uterus where I set up residence, like the human itch might that causes scabies. In other words, I invaded and occupied her internal organ and made it my home.

But her organ was never mine. Why? Because invasion and occupation alone do not amount to ownership.

Pregnancy is not a transfer of organ ownership from one entity to another. During the period of time in which my mother allowed me to occupy and use her body and her organs, she retained full ownership of herself - her whole and her parts. None of her belonged to me.

Some antis will object to this by pointing out that states have varying versions of “squatters’ rights” laws (adverse possession) allowing squatters to take ownership of land/property that doesn't belong to them. But invasion and occupation alone are not enough to secure ownership in such cases.20 Oh, and let's not forget that human beings’ bodies are not real estate. Human beings are not neglected plots of land or abandoned buildings. There are no squatters' rights to other people’s bodies.

Your organs belong to you. My organs belong to me. And while there are ways to relinquish ownership of our organs (voluntary organ donation; organ removal), simply being pregnant is not one of them. Invasion and occupation do not equal ownership.

Under uterus exceptionalism, antis think they can both acknowledge that no legal person can use or be inside of another person without consent, while also excluding the uterus - and only the uterus - from this broad rule. As the article, Part I of this two-part series on uterus exceptionalism, has laid out, uterus exceptionalism arguments fall flat on the merits. The uterus is not exceptional, and a person's organs do not belong to someone else.

The ideologues of inequality are simply trying to hash out answers to the inconvenient fact that no person has a right to another person's body, blood, organs, or bone marrow, nor to their cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, urinary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and metabolic systems. — Not even to stay alive. And they're flailing. ■

Leave a comment

Acyutananda. (2022, February 5). The body, the uterus, and the question of ownership - human defense. Human Defense Initiative . https://humandefense.com/the-body-the-uterus-and-the-question-of-ownership/

Post by X user @Fredric79965849. March 17, 2024. https://x.com/Fredric79965849/status/1769480482058563832?t=1tzZCBdLUxTQQwCVF0D_jQ&s=19

Post by X user @TheRealDuane. March 25, 2024. https://x.com/TheRealDuane/status/1772256907840897155?t=-epdulr0Tfde1f33524pew&s=19

Post on X by anti-choice group LiveAction. July 17, 2025. https://x.com/LiveAction/status/1945876900909600820?t=OvEmz3nG88x7CCkueVTDow&s=19

Quote from anti-choice activist Stephanie Gray Connors. Retrieved at:

Admin. (2025, August 7). - national right to life. National Right to Life - Protecting Life in America Since 1968. https://nrlc.org/nrlnewstoday/2025/08/live-action-exclusive-stephanie-gray-connors-tackles-common-pro-abortion-arguments/

Šišljagi´c, D.; Blažeti´c, S.; Heffer, M.; Vranješ Dela´c, M.; Muller, A. The Interplay of Uterine Health and Obesity: A Comprehensive Review. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 2801. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12122801

Mandal, A. (2023, July 7). What does the uterus do?. News. https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-Does-the-Uterus-Do.aspx#:~:text=Functions%20of%20the%20uterus&text=The%20uterus%20provides%20structural%20integrity,the%20bladder%20and%20the%20bowels.

Stephanie V. Koebele, Victoria E. Bernaud, Steven N. Northup-Smith, Mari N. Willeman, Isabel M. Strouse, Haidyn L. Bulen, Ally R. Schrier, Jason M. Newbern, Dale F. DeNardo, Loretta P. Mayer, Cheryl A. Dyer, Heather A. Bimonte-Nelson, Gynecological surgery in adulthood imparts cognitive and brain changes in rats: A focus on hysterectomy at short-, moderate-, and long-term intervals after surgery, Hormones and Behavior, Volume 155, 2023, 105411, ISSN 0018-506X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2023.105411 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X23001095)

Endocrine Society. (2019, November 15). Hysterectomy may be linked to brain function. https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2018/hysterectomy-may-be-linked-to-brain-function

Koebele SV, et al. Hysterectomy uniquely impacts spatial memory in a rat model: A role for the nonpregnant uterus in cognitive processes. Endocrinology. 2019;160(1):1-19.

Nicolas, P., Proust, J., & Fabiszak, M.M. (2022). Women and Their Uteruses: Symbolic Vessels for Prejudiced Expectations. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 15(1), 49-70. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/849354.

Inyerview with anti-choice activist and apologist Stephanie Gray Connors. Retrieved at:

Post by X user @TheRealDuane. March 25, 2024. https://x.com/TheRealDuane/status/1772256907840897155?t=-epdulr0Tfde1f33524pew&s=19

Value judgment definition in American English | collins english dictionary. Collins Dictionary . (n.d.). https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/value-judgment

What are Value Judgements? December 29, 2023. CountyOffice.org. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxl5uB9xmZg