The Argument of Experience

The minute that someone tries to argue against the pro-life viewpoint by means of the "men do not understand the issue and thereby do not have a voice" argument, they are making an argument with profound philosophical implications. Think about what this argument is really saying. At first glance, it seems to be valid. I am not disputing the fact that men and women are differently affected by pregnancy and child-birthing. To argue so would not even be archaic; but would be complete falsehood. Of course men and women experience pregnancy differently: only one can actually carry the child!
This argument is really claiming that experience or potential for a particular experience gives one credibility in an argument, specifically moral authority. By saying that men cannot speak on the issue of abortion, one is arguing that the heart of moral matters lie in the very experience (or, again, the potential to have that experience). I would like to counter-argue that this philosophy does not hold water. Following this philosophy, only children would be able to have a say that child abuse is or isn't wrong. The fact that we even have a term, child abuse, shows that we do not follow this "experiental authority" argument. We have clearly deemed that child abuse is, in fact, abuse, and is, in fact, wrong. It would not make sense for the "victims" or those affected to be the final authority and have the credible voice in the matter- children are some of the most vulnerable members of society anyways.
The thing is, that though abortion may affect women differently than men, to deny men a voice in the abortion debate is to deny another rights that we ourselves are asserting- the right to an opinion and a credible voice. In this case, men are also affected, being in nature co-creators in a human life, and also having a stake in this situation. Women and men come together to create a child, as it is. Why should that man not have a say in what is done to his child? That seems contradictory. Also, being as the child is not an extension of a woman's body as an arm or a leg or a nose is, but being a unique human individual at the genetic level, why should the child not have a say? Since when do we get to decide that though the child is dependent on the mother's body to live for the first nine months and then dependent on the mother's nurture and nutrition (through milk) for a while after birth that the woman gets to decide on the very LIFE of that child?
Following this philosophy, we see that must define human life: is human life a very inherent thing that extends from "womb to tomb"? Or are we allowed to define the inherent worth and right to live or not to live of one by their dependence? One quickly see that this spirals into an argument about the handicapped or disabled who are dependent in different ways, or the elderly who, for reasons due to age or to sickness, lose the ability to be independent.
It gets messy quickly. So let it suffice to say: I think know that ALL human life is inherently and intrinsically valuable and worthy of our respect and our protection. And that, in a nutshell, is why I am PRO-LIFE.