Tired of the pro-choice lie

[Honesting]

I keep seeing people bring this up again, especially after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, that he once said if his 10-year-old daughter became pregnant through rape he’d insist she carry the baby. People call it misogynistic and vile. To be clear, that’s not my view and I’m not here to argue the pro-life case.

I actually have mixed feelings about abortion. I'm okay with the MAP and not okay with abortion up to the point of delivery. Where to draw the line is something I haven't decided yet.

What I do want to say is that it’s dishonest to pretend CK's position comes from hatred of women. The pro-life stance is very consistent and, internally, very coherent. If you genuinely believe an unborn child is a human being with rights, then ending its life is always wrong, no matter how it was conceived. We’d never allow a raped woman to kill her newborn, even if it was the product of rape. So if you see the foetus as having equal rights, then by that same logic, it shouldn’t matter whether conception was through rape.

I know the other side, and I understand it. I’m not dismissing the complexities. But the idea that the pro life argument is born of misogyny is simply false. It comes from a clear and reasonable moral framework: once human life begins, it carries human rights.

Wasn't he a gun supporter though? How can you be 'pro life' but support all and sundry having guns?

People call it misogynistic and vile

Well it is. The only person who should decide what happens to a foetus is the person carrying it.

With regards to no abortion versus abortion ok in cases of rape, that's also hypocritical. It's not to protect a foetus, it's to punish a woman.

I think it is misogyny, though, as it’s basically stripping a woman (or girl) of the right to bodily autonomy as soon as she conceives. No concept of a clash of rights (if you consider a bundle of cells to have rights). She becomes a vessel.

You're correct OP. Pro life activism is quite coherent- it's an activism that says a raped 10 year old girl should carry a baby to term, and the foetuses life is worth more than the physical or mental health of the 10 year old girl.

Coherent but inherently misogynistic and leading to quite vile outcomes when you actually think about it.

Oh don't be ridiculous. He's entitled his his religious beliefs, but he isn't entitled to ask anyone else to live by them.

Precisely! No one who advocates for anyone who fancies one to have the right to a gun can call themselves “pro life” surely? I mean what did he think that guns were for?

if men could get pregnant there would be abortion machines in every corner.

It is misogyny because this isn't really about the fetus for a lot of men, they don't want women to have this choice because they only see it from a man's prospective- if the man wants the child they feel the women should give birth to it regardless of circumstances,how the woman feels about it isn't important to them. How can any decent man want to put his DD through pregnancy and birth at such a young age, her trauma and pain is less important than his feelings about their pregnancy.

It's not coherent at all. Nobody has the right to another person's body, even if it means they will die. Otherwise we would forcibly remove kidneys for donating to people who need them. But they never advocate for that for some reason.

It’s a woman’s choice. A 10 year old girl is not able to make that choice. I would assume that part of the treatment of a 10 year old rape victim would include the MAP if there was time, and the earliest possible abortion if either the MAP didn’t work or was too late. Anything else is unthinkable.

The pro-life stance is very consistent and, internally, very coherent. If you genuinely believe an unborn child is a human being with rights, then ending its life is always wrong, no matter how it was conceived. We’d never allow a raped woman to kill her newborn, even if it was the product of rape. So if you see the foetus as having equal rights, then by that same logic, it shouldn’t matter whether conception was through rape.

I agree that this is true, and to some extent I understand that, if you needed to pinpoint where an embryo, foetus or zygote etc become "a person" then "at the point of conception" seems an easy point to choose.

The problem with choosing this "simple" viewpoint and never challenging it is that it's an ethical minefield when it comes to the life of the pregnant woman. You are choosing a position that in real tems results in death, injury and pain to a lot of women and children.

Basically what @ScholesPanda said.

I think if there was evidence that he wasn’t a misogynist more generally then you may have a point that this particular view stems from his Christian beliefs.

Where then does that leave comments like this?

‘Kirk also stated that Taylor should “have more children than she has houses.” He told the singer to “Engage in reality more … Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”
The controversial figure also accused the Shake It Off singer of being a bad influence. He said: “Up until this point, that’s not a great role model for young women to wait all the way until you’re 35 and just put your career first.”
He added that the reason she had been “annoyingly liberal over the last couple of years” was because she was not yet married.’

Is that borne of Christian teaching? Because to me it sounds like he was just a massive woman hater.

He felt people should be permitted to own firearms to protect themselves and their families.

I'm vehemently pro-choice however I agree at not being surprised when those who are anti-abortion are against it for any reason.

The argument for abortion in cases of rape and incest is often brought up as queries for pro-lifers and while some do agree with these as acceptable exceptions (as they recognise the harm inherent in these circumstances), I think other questions are more pertinent to ask. I haven't seen Charlie Kirk be asked how he feels about circumstances where the mother's life is at risk and how you weigh this versus the life of a foetus.

It has been shown in multiple occasions that restrictions on abortion result in women dying. I'd rather debate this honestly and how any proposals for bans or curtailment of rights would mitigate against this. If all life is sacred then that includes the needless deaths of pregnant women.

What if we imagine a world where, I dunno, they could grow somebody who needed a transplant a new heart? It will take 9 months to grow and in the intervening period you have to be hooked up to them 24/7. It carries a risk of death to you, a small one but it's there. It carries a moderate risk of permanent damage, such as incontinence. You have no option to opt out of this arrangement once you're hooked up, even if you didn't choose to enter the arrangement in the first place (you woke up one day and the hook up was in place already).

Would we say that was reasonable? If we wouldn't say it was reasonable, why do we treat pregnancy differently from that?

That's what I always get stuck on. It may well be sad if people choose to have abortions, but my belief in their right to bodily autonomy is pretty unshakable.

“Where to draw the line is something I haven’t decided yet”

well it’s not up to you is it, you draw the line for yourself and decide what you’re happy to do with your own body.
If you don’t believe in late term abortion you don’t have one.

You don’t get to decide for other women. A foetus with no potential to live outside the womb is not the same as a newborn.

I believe the rights of the pregnant woman or girl are worth more than the rights of a foetus.

Putting the rights of the foetus first and forcing women to carry pregnancies they don’t want is misogynistic.

Did he draw the line at using the guns to injure or kill someone? Or is that ok?

I agree that if you believe that life starts at conception it is consistent to believe that abortion is wrong in every circumstance.

I do find people who pick and choose when abortion is ok more repugnant than those against it in all circumstances.

That doesn't mean it isn't rooted in misogyny though. Have you read the bible? I believe that's what Charlie Kirk's views were based on and, no spoilers, but it's hard to argue it's a feminist text.

Has he asked anyone to live by them?

The anti-abortion (ie pro forced birth) position is inherently misogynistic because it removes all agency from the pregnant woman. It dehumanises pregnant women by reducing them to incubators.

He believed guns were ok to protect the innocent.

"The idea is to protect the innocent," he said, "as long as you're not doing things that would cause someone to believe that they're being threatened by the presence of your firearm."

So if someone was shooting at innocent people then I believe he would see it as ok to shoot back. We can’t compare someone out to harm others with an innocent developing baby

He would force his 10 year old daughter to live by his religious beliefs.

@NuffSaidSam I do find people who pick and choose when abortion is ok more repugnant than those against it in all circumstances.

I understand your point but don't we all do this to some extent? Most people on here would not agree with termination at 38 weeks, for example.

I actually have mixed feelings about abortion. I'm okay with the MAP and not okay with abortion up to the point of delivery. Where to draw the line is something I haven't decided yet.

Well if you’re ever in a position to need to decide that then you will know where to draw the line. You only need to draw the line for yourself and no one else