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.

As in abortions always result in a death but forced birth doesn't.

The argument here though is whether the anti-abortionists are misogynistic or not - and enforcing a policy that results in the deaths of living women is misogynistic. It values the potential lives of foetuses more highly. So it comes from misogyny, from assigning lesser value to their lives.

If somehow birth threatened men's lives, there would be no anti-abortion movement at all. It's women who are expendable.

Its only women who are expendable.

When it comes to men's health and men's bodies, any and every intervention takes place to alleviate their inconvenience and their suffering and the minimisation of any risk to their wellbeing. But women are told to put up and shut up, to make sacrifices, to endure and to do it without complaint. Women are told that their pain isn't real, that their reactions are 'a lot', that they're making a fuss and most importantly should never put their own needs first. The anti-abortion movement is part of this bigger whole, entirely born from misogyny. If a few women die as a result of abortion bans, and enormous numbers of women are made to suffer, it doesn't matter. Because women's pain and women's lives are just not that important.

Ikwym, but why do you have to juxtapose motherhood with 'corporate careers' in that implicitly pejorative way?

I realise you may not mean it like that. It's just that I've seen that kind of phrasing a lot recently on SM accounts that belittle paid work as souless/corporate/insignificant/materialistic
Etc and it grates a lot.

Men's work, including corporate men, is much less likely to be described in this way.

It also sets up an absurd binary which fails to take into account the many other, often altruistic jobs, women do : teaching, nursing, charity work, law, medicine, social work academia, arts etc

It's part of a set of standard denigrations of women's work, others are the way female office jobs are denigrated as 'useless bureacratic email jobs' (when in fact men occupy the majority of these), women in positions like teaching & social work are seen as interfering busybodies etc

Women's paid work should not be bashed, and neither should motherhood. It's not a zero-sum game.

Also, be wary of public men who appear to value motherhood or talk about protecting women. It may well be genuine, but it is also sometimes used to mask negative intentions.

hamstersarse, let's say an archetypal selfish celeb eternal bachelor like Leo Dicaprio married. Or to give a more vintage example, Warren Beatty when he married.

Do you think CK should have advised in that case, 'Submit to your wife, Leo. You're not in charge.' ?

And do you think he would have?

Presumably yes, since you think he saw marriage as mutual submission of both genders...?

Do you think CK would have advised a male singer who had done similar to 'submit' to his wife? Why or why not?

Many adoptees are still pro choice, though.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/10/adoptees-abortion-beliefs/%23:~:text%3DIndeed%252C%2520since%2520the%2520fall%2520of,singular%2520decision%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2520Bomberger%2520said.&ved=2ahUKEwi_88Ojm_ePAxWOQkEAHTVpK18QzsoNegQICBAN&usg=AOvVaw1MdEu7IbodDw-O6Sj-l90X

Why do you create a false binary of cruel domineering wives & submissive wives?

Do you think a cruel, domineering husband should be told to submit to his wife?

Also, Taylor Swift wasn't the epitome of single women. She's been with her fiance for two years and prior to that was in a six-year relationship with Joe Alwyn. She's a woman who has spent eight years of the past decade in one of two long term committed relationships. She's written break-up songs and love songs alike. Yet there is this popular perception of her a a hopeless, miserable singleton crying at home with her cats - this billionaire who breaks music industry records and has a flourishing career doing what she loves while also being pretty successful in her personal life. As you rightly point out, Leonardo DiCaprio does not get characterised in the same way. Male singer-songwriters write about their love lives and aren't trivialised for it. On a thread about misogyny, it's apt that Swift has come up as she's a very neat example of how it works in practice, and a reminder of how much successful and accomplished women distress right-wingers who just cannot bear to see it.

That’s the thing. He probably wouldn’t force his 10 year old daughter to carry a pregnancy to term and then birth. And force her suffer the psychological effects of that and the lifelong physical effects it would have on her still growing body,

He’d quietly and secretly arranged for her to have an abortuon. Because men like that don’t want that for their daughters But it’s okay for other people’s daughters.

I’m far too old and seen far too much to not know what these men say is one thing, and what they do is another.

Well, a lot of those men do, @TooTooMuchEverything. In parts of the US they still make girl children marry their rapists.
https://equalitynow.org/what-we-do/womens-rights-around-the-world/womens-rights-in-north-america/child_marriage_us/

A lot of them do, but a grifter like Kirk probably wasn't in it because of deep commitment to the ideology. He more likely was one of the 'do as I say not as I do' hypocrites who happily strip away rights from others that they have every intention of using for themselves and their families. Look at his very successful, very capable, very qualified wife. It's other women they wish to disempower. His daughters will I'm sure be encouraged into higher education and positions of influence and power. And groomed all the while to do their utmost to remove the privileges from which they benefit from the masses.

It's like the tradwives making bank as hugely successful influencers while play-acting demure submission. They're accomplished businesswomen wearing a barefoot homespun costume to rake in cash pushing a lifestyle they would never lead.

There’s no truer illustration of how Americans think everyone is American: someone in the Heritage Foundation decided that because MN is a place that questions transgenderism, it must be a place that adores trad values. Hence the plethora of accounts posting regurgitated CK talking points.

The royal kicking that they are receiving here will, just maybe, open someone’s cracker-barrel eyes. Mind you don’t trip on that Grand Wizard robe as you find the door, hamster.

Would you really want to live in a society where many people had guns but you and your family didn't? I wouldn't. I'd want a gun, and hope I'd never need to use it.

That’s a bit chicken and egg situation though? If many people actually weren’t allowed to have guns and freely buy them at Wallmart, then it removes that premise. Plus, many American households are gun free , despite the other“many,many” gun toting American.

Yes it is chicken and egg, but it's like nuclear weapons. You kinda need them now. If anyone has them, you'll always be vulnerable to them. The technology exists. I'd far rather it didn't, but it does.

That wasn’t why he supported guns

"You kinda need them now". No, I don't. I live in a country where handguns were made illegal after Dunblane. Bog off back to your yeehaw swamp.

Why did he

There is no evidence of gun ownership providing any level of protection against fatal shootings by strangers.

In fact, research has shown that living with a gun in your home increases the likelihood of being shot to death, rather than decreasing it. Particularly in a violent domestic incident but also through suicide and accidental shootings.

"Research"

"Yeehaw swamp"? I'm Scottish too. There are a lot of guns in rural Scotland.