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.

the other person had a go at me.

however. The issue with needing a police report is that firstly, many rapes go unreported especially and secondly what do you think might happen if, in order to access an abortion, you had to report a rape to the police? Thirdly, do you think it’s likely that women’s word would be believed? Do you see how it might lead to a delay in access to an abortion and lead to women accessing backstreet abortions?

putting constraints on abortion like this won’t stop them happening - it will merely drive them underground and make them dangerous and unsafe.

Legally it doesn’t.

Keep your nose out of other people’s lives , choices and wombs. Simple

And just like that...

...you demonstrated your misogynyposition for all to see @Honesting.

I believe the choice should be there for everyone. I won't speak for another woman or tell her what to do.
However, personally I believe abortion is wrong.

X-posted with this:
I don't know who said that to you but I certainly didn't. WADR and with the utmost sympathy for what you went through, you don't seem to be in a mental space to have a reasoned discussion.

Your position is now very clear @Honesting.

Sorry for the double post.

Can you please evidence what in my posts with you this evening indicates that I am not in a mental state to have a reasoned discussion? Please. Thank you.

Once again and slowly.

The moment when someone says "foetus is a human and has full rights" without acknowledging that such foetuses rights may be conflicting with rights of a woman, is the moment of misogyny. It is completely ignoring that there is another human, this time a woman, whose rights needs to be considered.

Is an uncertain and largely hypothetical(given natural miscarriages level) life of an early stage foetus more important than the right of the women not to be submitted to a cruelty (which being forced to carry rapist's baby would be)?
People can have different answers to this question, but failing to even ask it is disregarding the very concept of rights of the women as a group, seeing us as less important, and therefore it is misogynistic.

And, once someone says that saving life is more important than not submitting someone else to cruelty, they should get ready for compulsory blood donations at the very least. That would be consistent.

Because the opposing argument would be 'right of woman to do what?'.

If the answer is kill a baby (which is how the pro life side views abortion), then actually no, nobody should have that right.

But that's because you're playing semantics. Misogyny doesn't have to be demonstrated through overt hatred.

Do you agree that it could be misogynistic in effect but not intent? Because I would argue that once the effect is known, any intent which dismisses that knowledge is inherently misogynistic.

No, because misogyny (and any other kind of hatred) has to be intent based, not merely a group of people not liking a certain outcome.

Imagine a hypothetical cut to mental health services. Now it's very possible that one gender would be more affected than the other (depending on which gender statistically has more mental health issues). That doesn't in itself make it or misogynystic or misandrist. In order for the label to stick there would have to be intent.

Misogyny has to be intent based.
No, it doesn't. Dictionaries agree with me.

To misogynists, no woman is in a mental state to have a reasoned discussion.😒

Now you're playing semantics.

Sometimes it is the foetuses' right to live vs the woman's right to live.
So yes, forgetting to even mention that there is some woman who's rights needs consideration is misogynistic by nature.

Once again - I'm not talking about the answers, the opinions can differ. I'm talking about the failure to acknowledge that the question is there.

The right of a woman to prioritise her own health, safety, future and life. Possibly and probably the health, safety, future and lives of any existing children she has as well.🤷‍♀️

Whose rights are you arguing for @Honesting?

In case of danger to the mother (almost) everyone is pro abortion. So in that instance not only are the mother's rights acknowledged, they're actually given precedence.

Ooh. That's one of those things that isn't real about anti-abortionist beliefs.

There are far too many instances of pregnant women dying because of anti-abortion laws. Women who manage to survive their miscarriages can face arrest, imprisonment and trial.

Who do you think is giving them precedence @Honesting?

1. you are still missing the point. The point is absence of general acknowledgment that there is some woman who has rights and the rights need to be evaluated.
   If the rights of the woman and potential conflict are not acknowledged, it is a conceptual flaw.

2. "Everyone"? Really ? Have you ever heard about Magdalene's laundries? Have you noticed the dead pregnant women in US or Poland lately?
   Anti-abortion position has taken the right to live from women for the sake of not terminating unviable foetus a few days earlier.
   In the end, it is consistent position, isn't it? Why should any women's rights be considered? Termination would be a murder in their eyes.

I appreciate that you aren't necessarily a pro-lifer yourself.

But my abortion saved my life. If I hadn't been allowed one I probably would have killed myself and therefore "murdered my baby".
Having the abortion (murdering my baby) only left "one person" dead.

How can anyone say that abortion is murder and therefore wrong, when the alternative also leads to a dead "baby"?

Charlie Kirk was a young man who accepted.some doctrine or other. I never had the feeling that he was heartless though. It is probable that he has never seen a 10 year old pregnant as a result of rape. I have seen an 11 year old who.became mute as the result of rape by a family member
She drifted about. Unaware of where she was going or what she was doing. She didn't sleep or eat much as a result of which she looked ghastly.
You. Would have to have a heart of stone to insist on a child seeing a pregnancy to the end.

Forced birth is misogynistic.

If a foetus is a human being, who granted it the right to live INSIDE another human's body? In what court did a foetus argue against its host's right to eject parasitic beings from her body? What arguments did the judge raise?

Do you equally support a tapeworm's right to live inside someone's body? OK, a tapeworm isn't human, but how would you argue that an zygote or an embryo is a human being?

FWIW, I support abortion to term. I feel uncomfortable about it, but I'm not a hypocrite so I must support it conceptually.

Bear in mind that some foetuses have flaws making them incompatible with independent life, which don't become apparent until late third trimester. Two of my relatives have had to suffer induced stillbirths in such circumstances, so my feelings are a bit raw on this topic - their 'births' were effectively abortions, and I'd have preferred them to have had the option of surgical removal under anaesthetic.

Personally, I probably fall closer to the viability line. In my view, the strongest pro-abortion argument is the mother’s right to eject an unwanted tenant. However, that doesn’t automatically grant her the right to directly kill the unborn child in the process.

The practical outcome of that position would be to remove the foetus and leave it to its own devices. If it survives, great; if not, that’s simply the unfortunate reality. What I don’t see, though, is a convincing argument for why it should be permissible for the mother to actively kill the foetus (I'm not talking in cases where the foetus would likely die once born due to severe deformities).

And I feel the term forced birth is disingenuous. It would be like saying after I've eaten I'm being 'forced' to poo.

Birth is a natural step that comes at the end of pregnancy. If anyone is forcing the mother, it's nature itself. A pregnant woman will give birth, that's just biology not policy.

The question is whether she should be allowed to avoid giving birth at the cost of killing the foetus in the process. And that comes back to how you perceive the foetus.

While I'm absolutely in favour of abortion when there is a danger to the mother's life, I'm a bit skeptical of the 'I would have killed myself' argument.

In general, people who are a danger to themselves and others, are sectioned. We don't allow them to use the threat of suicide as blackmail, especially not when it comes to doing harm to others.

So essentially it brings as back to the question of whether killing a foetus is defined as doing harm to others or not.