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.

So much is black and white until it happens to you and/or anyone you care for

Referring to people who hold such strong beliefs.

The pro-life stance isn't easily understood from a human rights perspective though. How can thinking a fetus should have more rights than a live woman or girl be a pro human rights stance?

I was the victim of a very violent rape and sexual assault.

thankfully I’m too old to have got pregnant, but if I had have gotten pregnant @Honesting would you have made me carry and deliver that rapists child?

This is a bit raw for me, I went to Cardiff uni open day yesterday and the CBR uk(?) anti abortion group were standing outside the uni buildings with absolutely massive colour posters of foetuses, 'this is Harriet, aborted at 8 months' made me so angry they're allowed to promote themselves with this propaganda.

A lot of religious US pro lifers, for one, were v tied to US adoption agencies. Huge numbers are religious-run. Some are good . Others not so much. The book The Child Catchers is a good investigation of predatory evangelical adoption agencies who often gave children from Asia or Africa to adoptive parents when they had parents alive who were adequate to keep them.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Child-Catchers-Rescue-Trafficking-Adoption/dp/1586489429

Some do. We shouldn't make generalisations

That is what a baby is at 2 weeks, eg. But I agree it's used to cover too many situations.

I didn't say wombs 'belong' to the foetus. What I did was point out the disanalogy between one's kidneys and one's reproductive system.

My kidneys are in my body for my health. That's what they're there for. Although it's true people can usually safely donate a kidney, that doesn't change the fact that a kidney's primary purpose is for the wellbeing of its host.

My womb however doesn't really serve a function for my wellbeing. It's there for the purpose of carrying a child. Which is why the analogy fails.

Again, I'm not here to argue a position. I'm quite familiar with the opposite arguments and they certainly have merit.

All I'm saying is that if you do accept that a foetus is a human being with human rights, it's logically consistent to forbid its abortion.. Regardless of how it came to be.

I'll find my post: there are a lot of cases where women have shot attackers, for one. I thunk the issue is guns as a while have got out of control.

I worked with hospitalized children for 10 years in the US and got to see first hand what happened when people had unwanted children. Its something that I, as a moral person, would never want to wish on anyone.

When I said better adoption and fostering - the agencies I met with which were religion run where a mixed bag. But kids who were born in the US who were drug exposed, with deformities or lets face it, were black and brown were overwhelmingly likely not to be adopted, and the system is not a good and caring parent, on the whole.

@Honesting any thoughts on how this fits with pro- life?

Makes no sense to me. No way should we be forcing women or children to carry on the genetics of rapists. No wonder humanity continues to suffer.

I really don’t like the lump of cells to describe a foetus quite well developed but I also find it creepy to equate embryos to actual humans. I mean with that logic you should rescue a freezer with embryos over a human if you were going into a burning building. That would be monstrous.

OP
*while a woman's womb is there for her foetus. It has no other use or purpose.

And also

I didn't say wombs 'belong' to the foetus.

Have you not heard of hormones OP? Because they are intrinsically linked to the reproductive organs. So actually, your womb does a lot more than grow babies.

@honesting how would you feel if the government decided to harvest one of your kidneys and part of your liver to keep other people alive? They are people and their lives matter. Why should your autonomy and the risk to your life matter?

@Honesting I had an abortion due to life threatening hyperemesis gravidarium. I have life long health repercussions due to the 8 weeks I was pregnant that time. Not having the abortion would have killed me and the foetus and left my 2 very young dc motherless.
How is that pro life? Pro whose life?

But you are completely ignoring that the mother also has human rights. She has the right to life. She has the right not to be subjected to cruel and degrading treatment. She has the right to her freedom. Why do none of her human rights matter?

It is an entirely misogynistic stance to automatically prioritise the foetus' rights over hers.

Except it isn't, for the reasons I, and multiple other posters, have pointed out above. Posts which you've chosen to ignore, presumably because they are inconvenient.

Actually, you can live just fine with one kidney. The second one is mostly a backup, capable of saving a life, your or someone else's.

It's logically consistent to not have abortion yourself. Forbidding it to others is very self centric and it means disregardinf the human rights of an existing woman.

The womb is giving a woman an option to have a child. But it doesn't belong to it

Ps. There were plenty of people through history who had very clear and consistent positions which they claimed were moral. Does not make them true.

And Pro Life dont have a lock of human rights. I feel the interpretation of human rights which values a fertlized egg at the expense of its mother is fundamentally flawed.

Obviously if there is a genuine danger to the mother's life, she should take precedence over the foetus. I don't know anyone who says otherwise.

But really I could flip the question, which actually gets to the crux of the issue. What if the rapists baby was already born, but the mother said the thought of that child makes her suicidal. Would you allow her to kill the baby?

So what's different before? It's that you don't see the foetus as a person with rights. Fine, that's the pro-choice position. But if you do see a foetus as a person with rights, what right does anyone have to kill it?

So he believes that a fetus is a person with rights of their own but not the woman carrying it?

But why is it ok with you to value one persons rights over another?

its about power over women - they don’t care about born babies health care or lives

It isn't always coming from misogyny but it often is. There is an awful lot of it out there.

If you don't like abortions don't have one, just don't dictate to others, it's none of your business any more than whether they have had a hysterectomy or brain cancer.