Rarely put so bluntly

I suspect that most of us have encountered the following (ahem) argument before, though rarely put forth so bluntly:

...
"It's my personal opinion that if you don't have a uterus, you don't have a right to express an opinion about abortion," Olson snapped.
...

Yet, do we not all know that the "liberals" who make (ahem) arguments of this sort (and it's always "liberals," isn't it?) will reject the form of the (ahem) argument if its terms are substituted.

For instance, we all know that a human person can have a uterus 24/7 for years and years on end and still never have call even to consider exercising "a woman's right to choose" ... unless a different human person possessing functional testes chooses to grace the uterus-person.

So, with that in mind, how does this strike you?

"It's my personal opinion that if you don't have functional testes (and requisite delivery apparatus), then you don't have a right to express any opinion about conception or contraception … or about the disposition of any ‘product of conception’ which might arise following deployment of said delivery apparatus," he quipped.

This argument has the same form as that snappily asserted by Ms Olson; the difference is only that some of its terms have been changed. Does anyone seriously believe that she'd accept anything about it as being valid? Even though it *is* her argument?

If there isn't already, there ought to be a name for what we all know Ms Olson will do should she encounter her own argument with these new terms. [Just in case the sarcasm wasn't clear, there are names for this: hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty]

At the same time, what do you think are the odds that the snappy Ms Olson grants, say, Sarah Palin, or Tim Tebow's mother, both of whom who surely do possess a uterus, the right to express an opinion about abortion?