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.

If you have carried a baby to term, I think you instinctively know the life started at conception. That’s the day you do things a bit differently and something in you shifts. I don’t think any woman can deny that.

In that sense, the life starts at conception argument makes total sense.

I wish I could be fully anti-abortion because it’s what I’ve always felt and also because I have adopted family members.

However, the reality is that life isn’t black and white and sometimes women cannot have a child at that time. I think people are too casual about it now though, it’s described as a medical procedure and talked about as if it’s nothing, it’s “just a bunch of cells”

I didn’t agree with CKs total ban stance, however I understand it deeply. And I appreciate him being a voice for the sanctity and miracle of life - that is something I think we are losing / have already lost. I’d prefer his voice to the people who think life starts at birth and that women have a right to abort at any time.

He was not a misogynist.

No, you [redacted]. It's me pointing out that as a society we differentiate between innocent and guilty people. Therefore there's no contradiction in banning abortion of innocent foetuses while promoting the death penalty for guilty criminals.

And whatever they might say about allowing abortions when the mother's life is in danger, in practice women die when abortion is restricted. See what's happened to the maternal mortality rate in Texas.

Women die when you restrict abortion. Your can argue that the foetus has human rights if that's what you believe, but you need to accept the inconsistency and misogyny of that position because women die as a result of that belief.

www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r879

I’m really tired of the left wing lying about what people actually say, deliberately misrepresenting people and creating bogeymen that don’t exist

His misogynistic comments about women needing to submit to their husbands, accept that their husbands are in charge and let men decide how many babies they should have are well documented. He was a misogynist. He believed women are secondary to men and he said it openly.

And I've had two children, one early miscarriage and no abortions. I don't believe life starts at conception.

When do you believe life does start?

Define what you mean by life.

A very minimal risk of death, and numbers matter. Especially when comparing it to the 100% certainty of the foetus dying (again, bringing it back to the question of whether a foetus is a person).

https://thegepi.org/maternal-mortality-abortion-bans/

Women die when you ban abortions.

Why do you think he believed in the sanctity of life when it came to abortions but not gun control?

Why did he not advocate for men taking responsibility for birth control, prioritize calls for men not to rape women, for better research and support for post natal support for women?

So a man/the state should be able to force a woman to risk her life or serious injury from birth if she does not want to take that risk?

Why should all men not be forced to go through vasectomies?

Not sure you can conflate the two. There are millions of Americans who own guns and are pro life.

Owning a gun in the US is a deep seated view around the constitution and the rights of all Americans to do so.

Many pro lifers also don’t own guns and don’t want to.

To generalise that right wing republicans are all gun toting pro lifers is wrong. Just like all democrats aren’t against guns and aren’t all pro choice.

You can’t apply a UK based view on this issue in the US.

When is a new person ‘created’?

Honestly the thing that promotrd the least harm, least abortions, least risk of dying in childbirth/from pregnancy complications is to chemically castrate men. Why don’t we? If the end goal is being pro life. Its the most pro life thing you can do to never risk a pregnancy at all. Surely a boner and orgasm has no importance against the right to life.

when they are born. Before tehn the personhood criteria is very low, although having carried several babies they are certainly sentient.

You're playing about with the sequence of events. Nobody can be legally forced or coerced into becoming pregnant.

The issue arises once she already became pregnant - and let's be honest, in the vast majority of abortions it happened consensually - and she now has a foetus/human/person/clump/parasite growing inside her. So now the question is whether she should be allowed to murder/kill/abort/terminate.

And that, I argue, depends not on your view of women, but on your view of foetuses. If they're persons with human rights it stands to reason that you shouldn't be allowed to murder them, whereas if they're just clumps of cells, you can rightfully abort.

That's a very nice strawman here, life threatening or convenience.

You really don't see the clash of rights? The woman has a right to decide about her own body - including drinking alcohol, taking drugs, bunjee jumping, taking any medication she needs for herself (even if the medication is incompatible with the foetus, not necessarily an abortive, for example some oncology radio therapy), the woman has right to not be subjected to cruelty (which being forced to give birth after as traumatic situation as rape or carrying severely deformed baby to term unnecessarily is), we could find more .

Moreover, there is a question who is responsible to support one's rights - the potential human rights of the foetus would be a problem of the society itself (which is technically unable to support them) ; making a non-consenting woman responsible for them is a step way to far.

There is a difference between murder and not doing everything in your power to protect someone's life.
It is not compulsory to donate blood, which is life saving to an existing person, either you do it voluntarily or you don't and noone will judge you. Why should it be compulsory to actively risk your health (and every pregnancy is risking your health and life) for someone else who isn't even born yet?
If you come with a technology which would allow women to safely (for them, defined as comparably safer to current medical abortion) get rid of the foetus and grow it outside of her body, you might be on something.
At this moment we don't have such a technology, and a foetus (before viability) is unable to survive without her support - which means it is unable to exercise it's potential right for life.
People in conditions incompatible with living don't have a right for life in a practical sense.

If you want to take it very technically, the "foetus has fullbhuman rights" position should argue for a method of pregnancy termination when the foetus is extracted as alive as is capable of. Before viability it would make no practical difference, and in a typical late termination (life or health of the woman in danger, severe deformities of the foetus) it wouldn't work/would be cruel, but at least it would be consistent.

The two are not at odds really
His argument mostly centred around family and protecting family. Owning a gun allows you to protect your family, it does make sense!

I’ve seen him in many many talks advocate for no sex never mind birth control - if you think you can’t raise a child, don’t have sex. This hits right into the heart of how casual we have become about everything, sex, abortion, relationships.

He also advocated for better post natal support. Often.

it’s like you’ve never actually seen any of his stuff beyond a 2 minute tik tok 😜

Yet here they are trying to apply a US based view on this issue in the UK.

what you mean to say is there are millions of americans who are used to getting their way with violent threat or force and they need more babies to be born to replace the ines theyre using their guns to kill

So you support abortion up to term.
That’s fine, your opinion.

I don’t support that, it instinctively makes me extremely queasy.

And the rise in maternal mortality rates when abortions are banned just doesn't matter at all? When you prioritise the foetus' right to life, you condemn those women to death. So what about their right to life? If you decide it's less important than the foetus' then, yes, you are a misogynist.

I notice you avoid the other comments she made on Kirk.

I didnt say that at all. Were discussing when life begins not at what point a foetus should be terminated. Your lack of good faith attempt to score a moral point makes me queasy.

Sounds fun

Men don’t have the ‘my body, my choice’ option?

Logically the only way to reduce abortions is get pregnant less, have sex less with men you don’t want children with?

Or do women hold no responsibility at all in any of this?

Umm no that isn’t what I’m saying at all. It was the opposite in fact. Have you ever lived in the US? Or have close family there that has (and has lived there for a long time)? Otherwise, your conclusion suggests you havent.

What a strange thing to think that.