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.

I noticed that too so didn't feel compelled to answer the question.

@FourIsNewSix
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.

I understand your point and that is the pro-choice argument. I've seen counter arguments to that, but as I've stated several times, I'm not here to argue the pro-life position. I believe there are strong arguments on both sides, especially when pregnancy is a result of consensual sex, and both sides have merit. Which is why I'm personally undecided and am quite glad I don't need to set the policy for the country.

My point all along is that the pro-life position is based on consistency and logic, not misogyny. If you believe that a foetus is a person with human rights, perforce you need to protect it and to outlaw procedures that would kill it. To pretend pro-life is about misogyny is unfairly demonising them.

that was not intended bad faith at all.
I understood from your post that you think life begins at birth, ergo termination to that point is ok. Otherwise it would be murder right?

A woman or girl’s right to choose what she does with her own body.

You are dripping in misogyny, by the way. You reek of it. The stench is overpowering.

Wow that seems like quite an extreme stance. You believe that an 8.5 month term baby has thoughts and feelings but not enough that individuates them and makes them yet human? What about being outside the womb changes that so dramatically as to consider it then sentient enough to be protected from “termination”? I dont think I’ve ever met anyone irl that would advocate for a fully developed pregnancy to be terminated at the mother’s discretion. Do you really believe this or are you taking an extreme stance to make a point?

Why does the pro life position not advocate for forced vasectomies?

Another nail in the coffin for feminism here.
And another day where I conclude that Mumsnet "feminists" have very different ideas about feminism to the vast majority of feminists in the real world.

Feel free to jump into the tiger's cage, but men like this will eradicate women's rights, bit by bit if we look away from them and make excuses.

Hhmm I wonder... Women supporting these men are turkeys voting for Christmas.

But the pro-life position is not consistent. If it was, the maternal mortality rate in Texas wouldn't have doubled after the abortion ban was brought in. If it was a consistent position, you'd be as safe getting pregnant and giving birth in Louisiana as you would in California. But that's not the case.

Because anti-abortionists are prepared to let women die. That is a misogynist and inconsistent position to take. You won't answer to that because you can't. But the truth is, if you implement abortion bans then women will die as a result and their living children, if they already have them, will be left motherless. That is the proven reality.

So you cannot argue that abortion bans are about protecting life or that they are not misogynistic.

Just taking one point at a time…

CK encouraged women to get married and have children because in his view it made them happier than devoting their lives to a corporation who doesn’t care about them.

He genuinely thought that’s what makes women the happiest. Raising children in a family,

It’s quite old fashioned, conservative, you just see misogyny, I see some truth. I think women do prefer family to career, in general. Most women I know are part time, they prioritise their family as it makes them happier. CK would always say he has no problem at all with women working if that’s what they want to do, but compelling women to work when they want to look after their children was something he was against and advocated for better taxes, cost of living etc to support that choice - his thing was that the choice has been taken away from women now, they have to work. Lots of women would agree if they are honest. It’s not misogyny which is defined as hating women, he didn’t hate women, it’s just so daft to say that,

And his view that women should submit to their husbands, accept that he's in charge and allow men to dictate how many babies they have?

I never heard him say that - if you can send the actual clip I can have a look

Any response to the alleged misogyny?

It's not just a "pro-choice" argument. It is an argument respecting the rights of the woman.

Either she owns her body including the foetus and can decide about it. Or, the foetus is full human being with full independent rights, and than it is welcome to teleport outside of her body and exercise them there.
There is no consistency in wanting to have both, and trying to force the woman to carry a foetus for the society to her own detriment is actively disrespectful to her rights and misogynist.

It's his widely reported comments on Taylor Swift's engagement; you can read it anywhere.

Misogyny is a belief that women are inferior to men. It's about keeping women at a lower social status than men. Yes, Charlie Kirk was absolutely advocating for that.

The fact that they are outside the womb is what changes. Lets be real though, not a single woman who didn’t want a child would let it get to that point. By 8.5m youre full of hormones etc to encourage you to nurture and protect that foetus so that it becomes your baby. If you dont want a baby you get a termination sharpish. Unless there are laws making it hard and hoping biology will change your mind. We know what this is. Its misogyny and control of women's bodies, lives and choices. Because as soon as that child isrn the real work begins and the mother and father have to be committed to al the things a baby needs, feeding every 2.5 hours, sanitry care, love, empathy, stimulation. Its not about the baby its the becoming. And a personld choose that with joy and love, not be forced into it because charlie from gunsville usa thinks he know better about her own capacity and desires than she does. These laws dont value womens ability to think. They dont trust us not to have terminations at 8.5 months because they dont trust our minds or personhood.

for example, if all men were unable to have sex, and thus risk an unwanted pregnancy it would be the best support of the prolife argument. But they wouldnt advocate for that as it would be considered too limiting and invasive. Never mind having a person growing in you and exiting through your vagina or surgery is the most invasive thing imaginable. Its about framing and this rightwing nonsense just wants to control womens bodies fullstop. Thats ehy they dont care if a ten year okd girl is forced to carry and birth. That should be more shocking than the though of life beginning at birth!

Women in general prefer making their own choices about what they want to do.

You will be surprised to hear that actually women in general don’t prefer prioritising other people over themselves. I refer you to the website that you are on where many many MANY women write every day about how actually it really pisses them off when they are expected to prioritise others over themselves.

so it’s great that you’re not a raging misogynist and you’ll be educated by the women on this thread and other Manet post and realise that’s actually what women want - not what you think they want

@Honesting My point all along is that the pro-life position is based on consistency and logic, not misogyny.

And various posters have pointed out that it being a 'consistent' position doesn't preclude it from misogyny.

A sperm, egg, zygote, embryo and foetus is not a person. Its the potential to be a person. A woman is a person. An actual, living person. It is wrong to prioritise possible people over actual people.

Denying women access to safe, legal abortion damages and kills women. Real, alive, actual human beings.

It's also not consistent.

It's interesting how men like CK always describe work to women as 'devoting your life to a corporation that doesn't care about you'.

Funnily, they never describe work to MEN that way...🤔Only women. I wonder why?

I do agree that modern work culture is often v bad, for BOTH genders, and US is even harder than UK.

There's also important benefits to being financially independent in case of abuse.

I wonder what his stance on maternity leave was?

The Taylor Swift quote I linked in the Yahoo link a page ago I think. That had a video.

Ir may have been a joke.

But he definitely advocated that wives submit to their husbands, there are many instances of him saying that, alone & in joint speeches w Erika. I will link tomorrow. 👍 This is something he genuinely believed.

As someone said - why are men happy to work in corporations who don’t care about them?

also - you still haven’t address the forced vasectomy point? Why shouldn’t all men be forced to have vasectomies which are then only reversed if their partner agrees to it?

Oh give it a rest. Women prioritise their family because someone has to do all that invisible (to men like you) stuff that keeps family and community working and there simply atent enough hours in the day. Its compromise and most women are raised and taught to compromise and concede and society is structured to reinforce this. Men also want to spend time with their kids. A lot of men are excellent at running a household or sharing the invisible work. Some more than others. Like women they are not a monolith and we cannot assume one size fits all for men or women.

@Honesting

So we all agree with you and criminalise abortions.

Now all women who fell pregnant and don't want their babies are forced to carry on and give birth.

What do you want to happen with babies after birth? do you want women to be forced to raise them? what if they decide to abandon these unwanted children? en masse? will you adopt some? do you want to build some state orphanages? what is your solution?

Hence the inverted commas. I do understand the point the OP is making, but it ignores the real world consequences as you've continually called out.