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.

How tf do you arrive at that conclusion?

Again @Honesting

I would appreciate an answer. Thank you.

Quite. its basically condoning rape. Reducing a living adult woman to nothing but a vessel. Disgusting.

I’m not going to get an answer am I?

Of course no one has the right to kill an already born child.

If I'd given birth to my rapists baby, it could have been taken away and adopted. It would have needed someone to look what it, that someone didn't have to be me.

But before it was (hypothetically) born, I was the only person who could sustain its life. Totally different situation.

And yes, I know there can be life long issues with babies removed at birth. But that wouldn't be an argument for making 14 year old me raise it.

It is rooted in misogyny. Even the idea that the uterus only exists for childbearing. The medical community is still quick to remove the uterus because it supposedly serves no other purpose, yet women experience real health changes after hysterectomy even if they keep their ovaries. The uterus is a poorly studied part of female anatomy because of misogyny. Its importance is discounted because of misogyny.

Doesn’t work that way. Either a life is a life , or it isn’t.

I'd imagine because pro lifers say it doesn't matter what the woman wants. That once they are pregnant they just have to go through with it. You have no rights or control over it in their sick world.

I agree.
if people actually want change they need to stop demonising the other side.
They genuinely think abortion is murder of a baby and find it extremely upsetting. Half of those babies are girls. They think women need protecting from rape because it is so awful. Most people have complexities to their character and dont just hate for no reason, even if you’d like to think that as it makes it easier to denomise them.

I do NOT love charlie kirk, but he adored his wife and kids and was extremely loyal to them (as atested to all who knew them - not like Trump). I wouldnt say he was a woman hater.

I've seen pro-lifers argue that this is like saying you should turn a blind eye to a crime. But the fundamental difference is that the foetus is inside the mother and not viable until 24 weeks (maybe a bit less often). Even if they see any abortion as a crime, it's still not comparable to someone harming another independent person.

For starters I'm really sorry for your horrific experience. I know only too well how it can affect someone many many years later.

Now I'd appreciate if you actually read what I wrote. I'm not here to argue the pro life position, nor do I have it clearly worked out for myself.

As to your question, it's not worded correctly. Nobody would make you carry the baby (except, technically, the rapist). That's biology and nature, you get pregnant and your body carries the baby until it's ready to come out.

The correct question is whether you should have the right to kill the foetus. And that would largely depend on whether we count the foetus as a person with rights.

I don't see the foetus as a person with rights - you need to understand this is you really want to understand why so many women are pro-choice.

Once a baby is born it has personhood, and then has rights. Before then thebwomen who is carrying it has the right to continue the pregnancy or not.

For me, abortion is not killing a baby, because it's not a baby. It's a potential baby, but then so is every egg.

Charlie Kirk was upfront about pro-gun beliefs that children would die in school shootings as long as guns were freely available in the US, and as he believed in gun rights, obviously accepted school shootings as acceptable collateral damage.

I don't see the death of babies as collateral damage due to the right to abortion, as I don't believe that babies are dying.

I think people who are anti-choice but pro-gun find this very hard to understand - they've accepted that children will die for the beliefs of gun owners.

That's nonsense. We differentiate between kidnapping and legal imprisonment.

But that’s the whole point. They see
it as the duty to protect those babies.

Ok then. You don’t like my phrasing. Let’s use yours

would you allow me to abort the foetus that was created as a result of an extremely violent rape? Well before the point at which it could sustain itself - say at 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 weeks of pregnancy. Would you allow me, an adult human being with capacity, to say I cannot provide for these cells without causing myself irreparable harm, and therefore I am allowed to remove them? Or would you deny me that choice and make me continue with a pregnancy that would probably mean that I would commit suicide and the foetus would therefore die along with me?

ETA more than probably. I already attempted suicide as a result. More than once. A pregnancy would have tipped me right over the edge.

the act of giving birth itself can cause enormous damage to the female body - especially young girls. Even if there is no identified risk there is always risk of causing life long significant damage. Or death. So there’s that.

Also - why don’t the pro lifers campaign for men to not ejaculate unless committed to physically and financially raising a child including supporting the costs of pregnancy birth and the next decades of work??? Hmmmm I WONDEE

We think women should be protected from rape too (how do they think thry should be protected?) But rale isn't going away any time soon. It occurs in conservative Christian communities, they're not immune. See the excellent podcast Sons Of Patriarchy, and Sarah Stankorb's book Disobedient Somen.

I don't think Charlie Kirk hated women. His attitude was more patronising - women should submit to their husband, which he stated many times.

A misogynist could make an exception for his wife and daughter and still be a nisogynist, you know. But that doesn't describe Kirk.

A lot of misogyny isn't woman-hatred, it's more viewing women positively but still as a lesser beings. In definite patriarchies like Saudi Arabia plenty of men love their wives & daughters but still don't believe they should be treated equally.

A lot of them do. I don't agree wholly w Newsenmum's post, but she has a good point that all sides must be viewed w nuance.

It really doesn't matter if the foetus is a person or not. Even if a foetus has rights it doesn't have the right to use someone else's organs without their consent.

If it's a life then it can be removed and see how it gets on outside the maternal body. For me this is the fundamental point and why viability is a reasonable cut off - nobody can be forced to donate a kidney or even give blood because they have their own bodily autonomy. Even if they were the only possible donor for a family member close to death and might be viewed as having a moral obligation to do it. Why are women called upon to donate their bodies if they don't want to?

"Nobody would make you carry the baby" is the OPs response to pregnancy by rape.

But in lots of American States you do have to carry the baby to term unless you can afford to travel to get an abortion - and pay for the abortion, and get time off work, and get someone to mind your kids etc etc.

The point of the anti-choice movement is to ban abortion, so no one can have one. Charlie Kirk, who the OP seems to admire, was at least honest that he believed in no exemptions, so an abused child should be forced to go through a pregnancy, despite the huge risk to her health.

The Us is currently removing as many rights from women as possible so they become some trad/stepford wife automaton.
It is totally misogynistic...men deciding if you keep your child or not , even if the pregnant woman is facing death as a result. They are now making inroads to remove contraception as an option. ( I won't get into the republicans who quietly avail of the odd abortion when their mistresses get pregnant)

CK wanted women just to be child bearing , uneducated, vote according to who her husband dictated, essentially be totally dependent on men. Project 2025 is about building a state that removes as many rights as possible, including workers rights, man or woman. Think amazon workers, no rights, no breaks, no unions, no sick leave, no maternity leave etc etc
If a woman gets pregnant it is her choice whether she chooses to carry on with that pregnancy. If you have christian beliefs that is your right, and if you feel compelled to keep the child regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived that is your choice, but stop dictating, bullying and coercing women into doing something they have no desire to do.

@Shinyhappypeople43

I don't see the foetus as a person with rights - you need to understand this is you really want to understand why so many women are pro-choice.

That's exactly my point. For the most part the debate hinges on whether the foetus is a person with rights or not. It has nothing to do with misogyny.

As the CK's remarks regarding gun violence, it was actually a very coherent position. He pointed out that we value certain freedoms even though it means x amount of deaths. Best example are cars and other vehicles. Ban all cars and there are no deaths from car accidents, but as a society we've accepted a certain amount of inevitable deaths for the right to have cars and buses.

They DO acknowledge there is a qualitative difference between a foetus and an independent person though. Otherwise most wouldn't agree that the mother's life should be prioritised if giving birth would kill her.

No, what OP means is that abortion bans don't make raped women carry the foetus, the rapist does. She doesn't see abortion bans as making a rape victim carry a baby.

I don't agree.

I'm glad I don't need to make these decisions. I probably would have allowed an early abortion, but I would not have allowed a 39 week abortion. With every decision there will always be hard cases where people suffer, but that doesn't mean lines don't need to be drawn.

What if the mere existence of the already born child would likely tip you over the edge, should we allow post birth abortion?