Did you see the Center for Disease Control’s nifty infographic about women and alcohol consumption? What an education!

Apparently, women have babies. Not only that, women get pregnant with babies. And, it’s a bad idea to do things to harm the developing baby before he or she is born. So, because of that, women should assume they might be pregnant at any given moment, and take drastic measures.

Perhaps you’re as confused as I am. It’s hard to keep it all straight anymore.  My first layer of confusion is that I thought men could have babies now, too. Why would the CDC be so sexist and bigoted as to single out women for their fearful admonition?

Second, I thought pregnant women merely had a condition that could easily be “terminated” without a second thought. Now, you’re telling me there are babies in there?!?

Third, while I understand that alcohol can be very harmful to the developing baby (again, who knew?!), I didn’t think we were opposed to harming the developing baby. I thought the developing baby was not a baby, not even a human being, and didn’t warrant any consideration at all. I thought the “tissue” was, in fact, entirely disposable (unless you know how to sell it for profit! Wink, wink!).

Oh hey, you know what else is harmful to the developing baby? Abortion.

But do you see why this is so confusing? We love abortion in America!  We love harming the developing baby so much that we call anyone who objects to harming the developing baby an “extremist.” Harming the developing baby is so important to us that it’s considered oppressive to women to even think about restricting the amount of harm, when we can harm, and how we inflict the harm.

The people who’ve turned harming the developing baby into a lucrative industry are cultural heroes and icons of female empowerment. We dare not touch them with a ten-foot legal pole, because the “right” to harm the developing baby ranks up there with the right to life — oops, well, not the right to life, but you know what I mean.

Since we obviously don’t mind inflicting harm, even lethal harm, upon that vulnerable developing baby, what’s all the fuss about? (No, I am not making light of the incredibly serious and lifelong harm done to the child in the womb by fetal alcohol syndrome.)

As I said, I’m confused. The government basically said women who menstruate should not touch a drop of alcohol ever, lest they unknowingly do harm to a new developing baby.

So, is it the unknowingly part that makes this situation so morally and medically unacceptable? When the woman knows the developing baby is going to be harmed because she has chosen that harm, then it’s okay? When the harm is intended to be lethal, and carried out by a paid inflictor, then it’s just swell. Right?

So here’s the CDC’s ultimatum, ladies. You. Must. Use. Contraception. If you’re using birth control, then feel free to drink. alcohol. No birth control? Then no alcohol! Because no woman ever gets pregnant while she’s on birth control. Except for all those women who do, and then need to have an abortion.

See, it’s okay to harm the developing baby by having an abortion because your birth control failed, but to harm the developing baby by drinking alcohol? Who would do that?

No, the only responsible thing to do is to load up on carcinogenic steroidal hormones. Better yet, get one of those wiry gadgets shoved into your uterus. Or you can always have your tubes fried.

Granted, all this unfailing birth control is harmful … to you, but that’s just the necessary risk you must take as a menstruating woman who could wind up pregnant at any second. Headaches, mood swings, libido changes, weight gain, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, perforated uterus, cancer — what’s the problem?

The fog of contradiction here is pretty thick. Women should not be treated like walking uteri, except that they are and at every moment of their menstruating lives, they should be on birth control to prevent an unplanned baby. Women are quite capable of making their own decisions about their own lives and reproduction, but they are not able to manage their alcohol consumption in relation to their fertility, so they must rely on pills and IUD’s so they don’t have to think too hard.

It’s just a fetus, just meaningless (but lucrative) tissue, except if Mom drinks alcohol, then it’s a developing baby who will be harmed. The fetus can’t feel pain at all, so it’s no big deal to tear off arms and legs and crush the skull, but it’s unthinkable to harm the developing baby by drinking alcohol.

It’s so confusing! Is it “My Body, My Choice” even if my choice harms the developing baby, or isn’t it? Is the fetus a baby or not? Is this baby worthy of protection or not? Are we obligated not to harm the developing baby or not?

If we zealously guard the so-called “right” to abortion because the little product of conception is not a life worthy of any consideration, then who cares if we drown the tissue/fetus/baby with vodka? I guess the point is that we’d better make sure the tissue/fetus/baby actually does drown and die. Inflicting lethal harm we can live with, but anything less than that and our scruples get tied up in knots.

We’re scolding women for that glass of Merlot because it might harm the baby whom we’d have no problem chopping up and selling for parts tomorrow. The insanity meter is exploding.

Here’s some clarity and right reason: There is no amount of harm we can rightfully do to the child in the womb, ever. Not with alcohol, or a scalpel, or a clamp, or a drug, or anything at all. That vulnerable developing baby is entitled to not be poisoned by alcohol, and to not be executed in the womb.

The CDC can pour that in their glass and drink it.