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'm not here to argue the pro life position, but your example isn't analogous. A person's kidneys are actually there for themselves, while a woman's womb is there for her foetus. It has no other use or purpose.

Why was he pro death penalty then?

This!

Not just that; women die in places where abortion is banned due to complications of, for example, ectopic pregnancies. Pregnancy and birth have historically been dangerous for women. It is safer with modern healthcare; the more healthcare we deny women, the more dangerous it gets. There will always be cases where it's the mother's life vs the foetus. It's not 'pro life' when women are dying - and the foetus inside them too - because of heartbeat laws that prevent doctors from saving her.

Denying women healthcare is misogynistic, and abortions are health care.

If I hadn't been able to have an abortion when I was pregnant following rape, I would have killed myself and by extension the unborn foetus.

How does that fit into a pro life stance?

@Honesting 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.

Wrong, they take women AND mens ability to defend themselves so not misoginistic the slightest. Gun laws would be misoginistic if the forbid women to use them, not the case.

Sounds like you are here to argue the pro life position, and your final sentence is genuinely sinister.

What does 'for' mean in this case? My uterus isn't 'for' anyone but me because it IS me. My whole body is me.

Understanding a foetus as a distinct human being with full rights is a matter of opinion, not a fact, and it has two big issues.

Firstly it is not practical, the foetus is unable to live without the specific host. You are giving it more than normal human rights. Or, do you think a state should have a right to take a kidney from you to save someone else?

Secondly, in this position there is a clear conflict of rights of the foetus and the woman. Deciding that a foetus must have full rights is mysogynistic, because it disregards this conflict without even mentioning it. It means that you don't see the woman as a human with rights.

@Honesting how is a woman’s womb not for herself the reproductive system does a lot more than carry a baby for a woman. If we follow your thoughts as mad as they are and say a woman shouldn’t kill a potential baby then she should be allowed to induce labour and see what happens to the baby at delivery. If it has a right to life regardless of the mothers choice it doesn’t mean it has the right to use someone else as an incubator when they don’t want to have that parasitic relationship.

Your, and other posters', snide comments are uncalled for. I was merely stating my position, and clarifying that I'm not here to argue against abortion.

My only point was that the pro life position is very easily understood from a human rights perspective, and there is no evidence that it's rooted in misogyny. To a degree it boils down to the question whether a foetus is a human being with human rights (ie a person) or not.

A foetus is not viable outside of the womb. Therefore it is part of the person it is reliant on for life - the mother. Regardless of your own belief system about abortion, people have bodily autonomy and can decide what happens to their bodies - and that includes the contents of their womb.

No-one wants to have an abortion. It's not a fun thing to do. Sometimes it is a medically necessary procedure.

A person can legally donate his kidney to someone who
needs it.

I do agree that most people don’t make the arguments from a place of hatred but from a different way of looking at the world.

It’s the same thing with the gun argument. I’ve seen a lot of people say Kirk said gun deaths are inevitable with the second amendment so they conclude he didn’t care about people dying and he’s just one of those deaths now. But if you get in the mindset of these second amendment people- they believe a USA without guns would be a worse place with more violence. So while deaths inevitably come from having wide gun ownership it’d be worse without it. I don’t agree with this at all but I think it’s not good to argue that he doesn’t care about deaths through guns or pain caused by not having abortion.

I would say though that someone can be misogynistic without realising it. It’s easier to say someone should be forced to do something that will never happen to you.

This thread is full of evidence that the pro life position is rooted in misogyny. You're just ignoring it all.

It's actually biology that has made women be 'incubators'. I prefer the term 'givers of life', but hey, that's just my non-dehumanising view of women.

Point is, it's not a policy that has made women be 'incubators', but nature.

I think a foetus has almost full rights after viability. I say'almost' bc if the mother's life is in danger, hers should take precedence.

Equating a two week old foetus, say, with a 6 month old foetus which could be viable outside the womb is logically incoherent.

The fact is it's nobody else's business what a woman decides to do with the foetus inside her body. The idea that people should go through a full pregnancy and childbirth against their own volition is just about the most sexist, misogynistic thing I can think of.

Why on earth do men think they can dictate this? It is not their body. It is not their choice. And to say you want your hypothetical ten year old rape victim daughter to be forced to give birth to her abuser's child?

He's clearly a sicko.

Well that's misogynistic rubbish if ever I heard it. My womb doesn't exist solely to have babies. It's part of my whole functioning body, controls hormones, is part of me being a healthy woman.

Again, why are so many pro lifers also ardent advocates for the death penalty? How does that add up?

But all beliefs and, indeed, laws are hypothetical right? If someone does this, this is the consequence/punishment.

What's dehumanising is taking all choice away about whether to continue to incubate the baby or not.

Nature is both good and bad to women in terms of pregnancy. Don't fall for the naturalistic fallacy that nature is ONLY good to women (or men for that matter). Rape, for one thing, has evolutionary reasons.

To a degree it boils down to the question whether a foetus is a human being with human rights (ie a person) or not.

No, it really doesnt 'boil down' to this, but I can see why the pro life lobby want to pretend it does. Because your supposition here is that women are just there to be vessels - their wombs don't 'belong to the foetus' as you so glibly posted, they belong to the woman.

And I have never seen anyone pro life who actually pushes for better adoption and fostering practices - or indeed better support for people in poverty. And yet, what do you think the life of those unwanted children is like? I find it immoral and cruel to condemn countless children to lives of misery just to defend the idea that women have less rights than a bundle of cells they are carrying.

Bc they regard 'innocent lives' as different from guilty ones (I don't support death penalty, I'm just saying what they think)

We have modern medicine that means women don't have to incubate pregnancies they don't want. Whether they are allowed to or not is absolutely policy. Taking away their right to choose is misogyny. Forcing them to die from complications of that pregnancy is misogynistic and also highly inconsistent with a 'pro life' stance. How on earth do you reconcile that?