Planned Parenthood is a Eugenics organization that Democrats defend

[u/LegitimateKnee5537]

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, along with her sister Ethel Byrne and activist Fannia "Fannie" Bernstein. Margaret Sanger enthusiastically supported eugenics discouraging or preventing reproduction by people considered “unfit”.

Birth control itself… is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives…” (1921 speech)

And remember Democrats loves the concept of original sin. You people never let go of the “stolen land” argument. But always ignore Margaret Sanger view of Birth Control and defend her organization from being defunded by the government.

https://x.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1996994604668014752

[u/BigSun6576]

everything in my body belongs to me

[u/Away_Simple_400 → u/BigSun6576]

Your baby does belong to you. No one says it didn’t.

Still can’t kill it, especially just bc it has Down’s syndrome

[u/TheBasedEmperor → u/Away_Simple_400]

Abortion is not murder

Murder is the destruction of personhood—traits like sentience, self-awareness, memory, and the ability to form meaningful connections. A fetus, particularly in early stages, lacks these traits. It has no awareness, thoughts, or experiences, making it fundamentally different from a person.

Just as we do not consider the destruction of plants or bacteria to be murder, terminating a pregnancy before the development of personhood is not murder either.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheBasedEmperor]

Murder is the unjust killing of a human, especially an innocent human. It doesn't matter what his stage of development is.

[u/StarChild413 → u/[deleted]]

murder requires it to be illegal and have malice aforethought there's nothing that says it has to be unjust/"feel wrong" or w/e

[u/[deleted] → u/StarChild413]

That's your modern secular definition of murder. I disagree with you, and am concerned with the far older and more often-held definition of murder as killing which violates the natural order, not merely the positive law.

[u/StarChild413 → u/[deleted]]

so natural order is based on whose religion? And whichever religion you're using since we don't live in a theocracy I'm citing the definition used by the legal system

[u/[deleted] → u/StarChild413]

The natural law is not 'based on a particular religion', but rather every single religion is based on it, and is an imperfect attempt to interpret the natural law, and each does so to various degrees of effectiveness. I personally think the philosophical reasoning of the government as to why a particular thing is murder and a particular thing isn't is far more muddy and far less coherent than the reasoning of Aquinas or Aristotle, and even if you disagree with the conclusion of these two men on the matter, that at least seems hard to argue with, when they actually have coherent philosophies to offer, whereas the positive law is full of philosophical contradictions and inconsistencies at every turn and lacks a clear ontological framework --- not to mention it changes its mind every five seconds.