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’ve not said that and I think rape survivors should have access to abortion

Its about control, and control of women.

If you think of it, it's not just about control of women.
You remove control over own body from half of population. You enforce societal norm of woman submitting to a man, enforce SAHM culture, making this half of population dependant on another half.
But then men, who now become responsible for women as well as children, who become the only breadwinners if women go for SAHM en masse, are fully dependant on their employers / state as well, their freedom to quit is dramatically reduced as well.
This is much deeper than just misogyny, this is about overall control of population and return to middle ages.

So when do you think abortion should be allowed?

my position is that I have complete bodily autonomy and that weakening that in any way weakens my bodily autonomy and leads to rape apology. And weakens my protections against rape.

it’s a line I feel we have to hold for women.

“Injuring and killing for self defence is morally just”.

Surely someone aborting a foetus because to carry that baby to term would cause mental distress, is an act of self defence for the mother and therefore morally just 🤷‍♀️

Against whom?
Oh, yes.
Other people with guns.

You've told us what you think.

You don't think it's misogynistic to say that men should be in charge of women.

You're right; it's about the elevation of wealthy and powerful men over everyone else.

The problem is that if you say abortion is fine if this or that is true then it relies on ‘someone’ making that call. What’s a ‘real’ rape? What’s the level of risk to the mother’s life that’s acceptable? What does it mean to be detrimental to someone’s mental health? Who is deciding this and what is their stance on all these (and other) issues?

I don’t think anyone should encourage that kind of control over people at all - the direction of travel there is troubling even on a theoretical basis.

I am just going to say it - I had an abortion at 17. My boyfriend disappeared, I had an unstable home life and was throwing up so much I failed my first semester of university. I have never regretted it. 15 years later I had my daughter and then my son and I give them a great life with a great father. I don’t regret that either.

Abortion was expensive where I lived and my dad paid for it and drove me to the appointment without judgement and I will absolutely do the same for my daughter if she needs me to - parenting is hard enough when everyone wants it, it’s too often unbearable if not.

The problem is that if you say abortion is fine if this or that is true then it relies on ‘someone’ making that call. What’s a ‘real’ rape? What’s the level of risk to the mother’s life that’s acceptable? What does it mean to be detrimental to someone’s mental health? Who is deciding this and what is their stance on all these (and other) issues?

You're absolutely right @PurpleThistle7 and it's why 'my body, my choice' is the only answer. Because if it's my body, Charlie Kirk's choice, I might be one of those women bleeding out while doctors watch and withhold lifesaving treatment. Or my daughter might be one day. And if not us, it will be another woman and her life matters too.

Rape conviction rates are extraordinarily low. A lot of rape survivors are not believed, so how would they access abortion if they couldn't prove conception was a product of rape? We can't attach these conditions in reality. When we're talking about a theoretical model, sure, but in reality we have to give all women access to abortion to ensure your condition is met.

And in a world where women have to 'submit to their husbands', does marital rape cease to be recognised. It hasn't been illegal very long. We could lose that right too.

Yes I would say Libertarian in US is now pretty much a named political movement; a sub sector of trump and MAGA.

You can take a look on r/libertarian Reddit.

Its become a big muddle.

Every foetus threatens its mother's life. Every pregnancy is dangerous - I had emergency c-sections each time, because it seems that my pelvis is too small to pass a baby's head (neither descended at all - despite induction). In any other time, and in plenty of other places right now, we would both be dead, and there's no way to know ahead of time which complications a mother will develop.

So you're just quibbling over how much risk justifies 'a woman murdering her baby'

I'm saying that since every pregnancy is risky, any abortion is fully justified on your own terms - self-defence.

I don't know what he thought about anything, he wasn't on my radar. But I personally think abortion should be universal until a certain development stage for the baby.

It is just bad faith debating to say things I have not said, but you aren't unusual in this.

You don't even think I said that men should be in charge of women and I don't really know why you have said it, but there we go, that is what people on the right have to deal with - bad faith arguments constantly.

Who's misquoting in bad faith here? I said you don't believe it's a misogynistic thing to say. Because I pointed out that Charlie Kirk said men should be in charge of women and you argued that he wasn't a misogynist.

I don't think the reason you aren't debating is due to anyone twisting your words because that just isn't happening. You just can't argue your case because it's so badly flawed.

If you'd like to clarify your position on Kirk's words @hamstersarse then please do.

Kirk advised Taylor Swift to 'submit to your husband and accept he's in charge'. His words. He said it openly. Do you or do you not think that's misogynistic?

I think it’s the basket of values that the anti abortion lobby often hold that points to mysogyny. If you are anti abortion but pro guns and pro death penalty then it’s hard to buy the idea that you are anti abortion because of the sanctity of life.

charlie Kirk seems to fall into that camp, alongside other more openly mysoginistic views he held its reasonable to believe his views on abortion stem more from a broader Old Testament view of the world as highly patriarchal and therefore women’s bodily autonomy doesn’t matter. Which is pretty mysoginistic.

Ok, I haven’t heard the exact context of what he said in its totality however what I did hear is consistent with what I’ve already said.

CK believed women are usually happiest when married and with children. Taylor Swift was the epitome of single women, and she’s 35. She’s built her whole career on relationship break up songs, she is the poster girl for single girl troubles, then she gets engaged. CK was saying he hopes she ‘submits to her husband’ in the sense of submitting to what a marriage is - a partnership and not a ‘single girl’ outlook. It’s not a literal submission, it’s a submission to a partnership and a marriage, because he thought that would make her happier than she’s clearly been for many years.

I don’t think that’s misogyny, you do, that’s ok

No - he meant that she should do what her husband wants her to do

Have to agree with this if you listen to what he has said about women. The whole surrendered wife thing is huge for these people.

This is nonsense. He told her to 'accept your husband is in charge'. It was an imperative directed at her. Not an expression of hope for her happiness. He said the words 'submit to your husband. Accept he's in charge'.

This is not about Swift's happiness, it's a futile and nasty little attempt to put a wildly successful woman in her place. She's clearly very happy to be engaged - to a man who evidently treats her as an equal.

It's also misogynistic in itself for Kirk to decide that women in their entirety are happier married with children than pursuing a career. It's not for him to tell women how to live - but he kept on doing it anyway.

He is talking about literal submission. He is putting women secondary to men. It is unequivocally misogynistic.

Here you go, his exact words.

'Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.'

Arguing that this is not a misogynistic statement is absolutely absurd.

Was here to link this exact quote. Saying this isn't problematic is a bit ridiculous. We all know that Charlie was a White supremacist, a misogynist and a supporter of violence. That doesn't mean he deserved to die of course, but it does mean we should stop giving him this much power in death.

This is beginning to make me feel like it is a creeping attempt to convince the UK female audience to align themselves with the misogynistic viewpoints and beliefs of the rar right Christian conservative USA.
The Musks Trumps Kirks of this world would love to have an ally in Europe to destablise it further. I wouldnt be surprised if this was a deliberate post to spread their misogynistic message. A paid bot as opposed to an automaton one iyswim.

Lots of women are rejecting feminism. Lots of women don't assume they will be in charge in a marriage. And lots of women submit to 'a husband' - which in this case is personalised but is more a statement of being committed to a marriage.

You can only think it is misogynistic if you believe that childrearing is lowly, that you shouldn't respect your husband and women should be in charge.

He never said that women are below men, indeed he stated often that women having children was the most important thing in the world, literally. And it sort of is, right? Without it we would all be screwed. And no, it doesn't mean that is all we are here for, but tbh it is part of it - and thankfully it is valued a lot by people like CK.