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 dont like a lot of what he says but it is nice in this day and age for someone to acknowledge the power of motherhood and to see it so positively and not some lowly task that comes below corporate careers. He seemed
to genuinely adore his family and dote on them.

submit to your husband. Accept he's in charge

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

Do you see how one word changes the meaning of this completely. Your first 'quote' was incorrect, it is not what he said - the second, actual quote is simply saying that she is not in charge of her husband. And what is wrong with that exactly?

Do you accept that he did not say "your husband is in charge" and actually said "you are not in charge"?

They are different things. No one should be in charge in a marriage.

It comes after 'submit to your husband'. Making it absolutely clear what he believes the power dynamic between men and women to be.

I really value and enjoy motherhood and my marriage.

It's still misogynistic to say men should be in charge of their wives.

Do you accept that saying 'you're not in charge' after saying 'submit to your husband' provides very valuable context that illuminates the meaning?

But this is a woman who has "been in charge" for all her life, and he is saying that marriage will require some submission.

Do you not agree with that?

No. I don't believe any woman needs to submit to her husband. Because I'm not a misogynist.

I know you are pretending you don't know women like this - but I certainly do know women who are domineering over their husbands, they belittle them and usually the marriage is miserable.

Would they be an exception - would it be ok to say they need to submit to their husbands?

...so did Fred West. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. Some women may want to be controlled but all you have to do is read mumsnet for a few weeks and it will soon become apparent what relinquishing your rights, your money, your job and any autonomy will get you.
This has reared its ugly head because some men feel their masculinity is challenged when they have to change the nappies , wash the dishes, do a night feed , and some household chores. They want their unpaid help to bring their meal to the table, clean up afterwards , look after the kids day and night and not bother their pretty little heads with the trivialities of life. And when it comes time and they fancy an upgrade they wont have to pay them anything, or hand over half their pension.
Ask the sah mums who've been dumped and left to do 90% of childcare and little to no financial support. Giving men more control is NOT the answer, they udually begrudge what they do as it is.

No, I think they need to get a divorce, as someone who belittles their partner and domineers over them does not like their partner much. No matter what sex they are. Do you think marriages where husband belittles wife are happy?

No, it sounds like they need a divorce.

What a strange conversation this is. No one should submit to anyone... people should be equals in marriage and work together to create what they want out of life. Women shouldn't belittle men and men shouldn't belittle women. If two people can't get along then they should stop being married.

However... if someone is going to be in charge of a household, I suppose the woman has an equal right to that as the man. It's not her job to change her personality to make her husband happier.

No. That's the point.

Taylor Swift has written belittling songs about her ex boyfriends for years. There is a question mark as to whether she would continue to do that in a marriage - she does have a clear pattern. If she wants to have a happy marriage, perhaps she needs to understand she is not in charge?

I know it is impossible to be charitable at all to CK for lots of people, but his arguments are consistent. This is about having a marriage of equals, not about a man domineering a woman.

@hamstersarse can you please answer my point about bodily autonomy.

and also. It’s my word against his word that he raped me. What would you envisage the standard of proof to be for permission to abort on grounds of rape and how would that be assessed, given that the legal process of a case getting to court is so slow.

thank you.

Oh my word. How dare Taylor, a woman, write songs about her life and her relationships. She needs bringing back into line.

Funny that Kirk never felt the need to comment on any male singers getting married and remind them to rein in their lip, isn't it?

Taylor Swift has been criticised by a lot of people for writing songs about her relationships with men - privacy concerns, unwanted scrutiny, profiting from personal life - on and on.

She is not some feeble woman who needs to be treated with kid gloves, quite the opposite.
But the fact remains that if you want a happy marriage, you cannot be 'in charge'. That is the basis of this, nothing more. Whether it is the male or the female, or even two women, two men, it is not good that one person is in charge and CK was observing that it is likely that to have a happy marriage (which he thinks is important) she may need to 'submit' somewhat.

His comments on her were condescending, paternalistic, misogynistic nonsense. It was obnoxious, sexist and entirely unwarranted.

And in his instruction to her to submit, he was making it clear that he thinks her husband should be in charge. You aren't arguing Kirk's viewpoint, you're very poorly attempting to recast in a less offensive light - and absolutely not succeeding!

And again, many men write songs about their lives and relationships. I cannot figure out for the life of me why they don't get the same scrutiny - what a mystery!

Im curious about those who are ‘pro choice means choice until born’ people and their views on the constance marten case.
of she’s taken abortion tablets/tried to kill the baby internally a few days before birth, would you think she was a terrible person? Do you think she’s a terrible person for whyat she did to her newborn?

I don't think abortion up until birth is a mainstream position, nor are late term abortions anything other than extremely rare and always will be even if the law was to become more accommodating. But this thread is about whether or not the anti-abortionist stance is misogynistic or not, and I'm afraid that it is, whatever strawman you might want to throw in.

Well the thing is, safe abortion was only really an option since the technology was invented within some people’s lifetimes. I can totally see how they would think it’s “against nature” and all that. And add in a religious element. Also men are terrified of women having so much power of their biological children. It’s not my opinion but i can see why someone would be against abortion. Add in another fear of “irresponsible women”.

In my view, babies lives should be prioritised, not merely their existence, and therefore should only be born into a loving, stable family who wants it and has means and motive to give it a good upbringing.

Unless these people reject all modern medicine as 'against nature' that doesn't really make sense. It does all come back to misogyny though.

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.

<cough>bullshit<cough>

In what fantasy world does being committed to a marriage mean the same thing as submitting to a husband?

Your arguments are all falling apart.

Abortions have existed since ancient times (Egypt, Rome ,Greece) in some form or another. Ironically it was in the 19th century that a cultural and social shift happened and abortions started to be banned completely, and women turned to the unsafe , old fashioned methods , despite the medical advances.

The real issue is you can’t ban abortions, you can only ban safe abortions.

No. No one should submit to anyone, male or female. Marriage should be a partnership. Equal standing.