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.

You do know he didn’t have a 10 year old daughter. So whilst he made a comment it was hypothetical

You can’t be pro-life and pro-gun, they cancel each other out.

Also, you can have whatever stance you like about abortion, you don’t have to have one if you don’t want to. It’s still not ok to think that you get a say whether I can have one or not though.

This

Do these pro-lifers campaign for men to be forced to provide practical and financial support for the child until it reaches adult age? Or is it all about forcing women to relinquish autonomy?

I honestly don’t care where you, or anyone else decides to “draw the line”. What makes you think you have the right to decide where the “line” is, for me? My body, my choice and I will absolutely fight tooth and nail to defend that right.

I find abortion very distressing topic. Because I believe life begins at conception, and everything that goes along with that with regard to abortion. However, I am aware that that is my belief and not a fact. And I would never impose my beliefs on other women. I also believe that women should be able to have bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy. Fundamentally I believe in choice more. Instead of imposing my choices on everyone else.

True, but that's to do with the survivability of the fetus/what is medically best for the mother and not the reason for the pregnancy (which is what the 'it's only ok if you've been raped' people are basing their views on). It's either ok or it isn't, how and why you're pregnant doesn't impact on whether a fetus is a life or not.

It's not pro life to say you'd make a 10 year old carry a pregnancy to term and go through a delivery and become a parent. That is not pro life, it's never been pro life. That was his position and it doesn't really matter how tired you are of hearing people object to it, it's an utter bullshit position. It IS possible to be pro life in a way that doesn't seek to control women and girl but nobody ever seems to take that actual position.

One thing I dislike about pro-choice is the 'clump of cells' rhetoric. Its deceitful. I think we can be honest about what abortion is and also be honest about women's needs. There is a clash and all we can do is balance that as best we can.

This. There are many things I agreed with CK on. His views on pro life are not one of them.

once human life begins, it carries human rights.

This is not a coherent part of the pro-life framework AT ALL when they are essentially forced birthers. Stop pretending it's a human rights position.

Abortion bans kill women. So anyone claiming to be 'pro life' while against abortion in all circumstances is not consistent at all. They are fine with women dying.

Much like his attitude to guns, his stance means people die as collateral damage - in this case, women. How can anyone call him pro life?

I think that there is the potential for a pro-life position that's based on believing that a foetus has human rights and being pro all things that give foetuses the best chance to be born into good circumstances and go on to have healthy lives. I don't always see this in reality though, the far right seems very anti the other parts of being pro-life like access to healthcare or maternity leave.

If that heart was for someones own child to live I'm pretty sure most mothers and fathers would not hesitate in giving their body up for 9 months.

I’d say I’m pro life to an extent. Equally if some maniac was out there killing innocent people I wouldn’t object to him being shot

If an anti-abortion stance isn’t born from misogyny, then campaigners would be doing what they can to reduce the burdens for women who are pregnant and have young children. They would be anti-gun because why should women have children when they will just be gunned down during maths class? They should be campaigning for free healthcare, maternity leave. They should be campaigning for children with disabilities to have greater access to education and healthcare. They should be allowing women who do not want children to be sterilised when they ask.

If they care about children, from any stage from two seconds after fertilisation until the age of 18, then they should campaign to make the world a better place for those children.

If you are against a late term abortion for yourself, that’s your stance. If you’re against late term abortions for everyone else, I hope you are doing everything possible to reduce the barriers to pregnancy and having a young family. Campaigning to lift women and children out of poverty. Campaigning for stricter CMS payments. The list goes on.

I don't doubt that many people wouldn't hesitate. But my question is whether or not it is reasonable to compel someone to? Not whether or not it would be reasonable for someone to choose to do so of their own free will.

That's just a non sequitor. Believing one should have the ability to defend themselves has no bearing on the abortion debate.

This can only be true if you view a foetus as an extension or part of the mother's body. If you see it as a distinct human being with its own rights, killing the unborn is no different to killing the born.

I’d love some stories about situations where people have used their assault rifles to protect themselves and their families…

Why would you need to draw a line for the others?

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.

If you genuinely believe a woman is a human being with rights, forcing her to bear a foetus which is damaging her is always wrong, no matter whether it is damaging her physically or psychically.

The fact that in some cases it might lead to difficult or challenging situations for women, doesn't in itself make a law or opinion misogynistic.

I mean I could argue that gun laws are misogynistic because they take away women's ability to defend themselves from would be rapist or attackers.

The pro life position is that the foetus is a human being in its own right. If that is true, why should anyone have the right to kill it just because of convenience.

Exactly, abortion got legalized because too many women were dying trying to do it themselves, in clandestine clinics or back alleys. Legalization was a "natural progression". They needed us alive basically.

It is materially different though, because of that fact that humans who have been born (and one could include near term foetuses as well) aren't reliant on one, and only one, human to sustain their life. Whereas an embryo and a foetus before the point of viability, requires the use of someone else's body in order to grow and develop to a point where they are capable of growing independently.

You might feel that the right to develop to a point where they can grow independently is greater than the mother's right to bodily autonomy. But it is a materially different situation.

I don't get the argument at all. What a woman chooses to do with the products of conception are her own business. You can choose what you like for your own body.

It's like poking your nose in where it's not wanted even touching on what 'you're comfortable with'. Just mind your business.