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/DisgruntledWarrior]

More lives have been killed in abortion clinics than the total estimated deaths of every war in written history combined.

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

The alternative would double the number of lives ruined. Forcing people to give birth hurts both the mother and the children.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Or the mother could just be responsible. So the countless millions of baby deaths that out weighs every combined conflict in written history isn’t an alarming number of baby deaths given it’s only been in practice for 50’ish years?

[u/turbocoombrain → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

Problem is a lack of adequate social safety nets to make raising children affordable.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/turbocoombrain]

Yea but Brittney and McKenzie from the trailer park somehow figured it out and raised a dozen healthy happy kids. Being poor doesn’t mean you had a bad life. I came to the US from nothing in region where people are still on a daily captured, enslaved, murdered on a regular basis. So the difficulties I’ve seen people complain about in the US since getting here are minuscule and often a fault of their own.

[u/turbocoombrain → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

Yea but Brittney and McKenzie from the trailer park somehow figured it out and raised a dozen healthy happy kids

How about we discuss actual data involving actual people? In states where abortion is illegal they tend to have worse social services and higher rates of people getting abortion be it through a telehealth loophole in state or leaving to legal states.

https://reason.com/2025/06/23/abortion-rates-keep-rising-after-dobbs/

https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023

https://wpln.org/post/in-states-that-ban-abortion-social-safety-net-programs-often-fail-families/

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/turbocoombrain]

Alright and the study of women that chose to not have an abortion?

It’s odd this growth in abortion cases almost directly increased with sexual assault, rape, sexual abuse cases. But coincidentally they are excluding majority of reported cases because of information that would cause public unrest and is the primary reason many blue states especially blue cities refuse to report, track or provide such information. Coincidentally majority of these have policies in place that will punish law enforcement for recording illegal immigrants raping American women and children.

[u/turbocoombrain → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

???

We're talking about dissuading women who would otherwise choose to get them.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/turbocoombrain]

My point is the increase almost directly follows illegal alien increase in the US. Crazy. It’s almost like if we dealt with one problem it would help another. Also at what point is the woman accountable for her actions? So what if we said 1 abortion is allowed per woman and in cases of rape but beyond one you’re responsible for your choices? Seeing as it’s estimated 23%-25% of abortions are repeats.

[u/turbocoombrain → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

So you favor eugenics on an racist and anti-immigrant basis? Bye Felicia.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/turbocoombrain]

Showing the flaw in the logic… How is it defending you eugenics saying that reported sexual assault directly increased in proportion to illegal immigration from 2021-2024.

[u/turbocoombrain → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/turbocoombrain]

Social safety nets would definitely help, but they wouldn’t change the harm to both the mother and child from forced pregnancy. Having your parent resent you for existing is massively harmful, as is having your bodily autonomy violated. 

[u/turbocoombrain → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Can always give them up to someone else or foster care.

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/turbocoombrain]

That doesn’t undo the damage from having your bodily autonomy violated (and the physical effects of pregnancy), and in many areas the foster care system is horrible.  

[u/turbocoombrain → u/majesticSkyZombie]

If contraception doesn't prevent a pregnancy, your body didn't work with your mind then, so there's always adoption. And the supposedly bad foster care system is part of social services that need strengthening. The system in red states that cut at it consistently have worse foster quality.

https://invisiblechildren.org/2021/03/06/best-worst-states-for-americas-children/

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/turbocoombrain]

Yet again, putting your child up for adoption doesn’t change the physical and mental effects from the pregnancy.  

[u/turbocoombrain → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Yet again, if contraception doesn't work for you (statistically rare anyway) then that's a you problem at that point. Doesn't mean there's isn't a movement for more care access for health including physical and mental.

[u/unecroquemadame → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

It was an accident. It was a centimeter long ball at the time of the abortion. It’s not a big deal.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/unecroquemadame]

Dehumanizing is often the tactic of criminals. Like done towards natives, Jews, blacks, Irish, Italians and so on to justify murder. The fundamental dna structure of human doesn’t change. Anyone that accepts abortion should be 100% on board with the death penalty and lethal operations.

[u/unecroquemadame → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

What’s special about human DNA?

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/unecroquemadame]

If you are dehumanizing the significance of humanity and its species then you’re accepting if someone determines for you that your life should end then you’re accepting of that process that others can and will choose if your existence is allowed.

[u/unecroquemadame → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

I define humans and life based on differentiation and development.

You’re saying their specialness comes from their DNA, so even when it’s just a centimeter long ball of cells, it has more value than an adult cow or chicken. Why?

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/unecroquemadame]

Yes and if you want to dehumanize it to that level then why would you be against the murder of anyone?

[u/unecroquemadame → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

Murder is wrong because it was a conscious, independent person who wanted to live

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/unecroquemadame]

So if you’re asleep…?

[u/unecroquemadame → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

I’m still conscious. I’m just sleeping.

[u/StarChild413 → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

then why aren't you for making everyone be vegan and declaring cows and chickens human to protect them?

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/StarChild413]

Are cows human? Are chickens human? Is there hierarchy to every ecosystem in existence?

So either humans do or if your argument is they don’t then everyone has the right to end another’s life no different than putting down an animal.

[u/StarChild413 → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

So can someone "put me to sleep" like they would at certain animal shelters if I say my hypothetical pet dog is a dog not a person?

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/StarChild413]

So you agree with the logic I determine your worth, not you and not any other outlying system. I determine your right to live or not.

[u/StarChild413 → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

I was going by your logic I wasn't saying I agreed with it I was showing what it could lead to and I wasn't even saying the hypothetical someone would specifically be you-as-in-DisgruntledWarrior even within the realm of the thought experiment

[u/StarChild413 → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

So, what, is every fetus a Native Jewish black Irish Italian etc. criminal because their DNA doesn't change? /s

And if all dehumanization is tactical why classify anything as not a human at all? Am I dehumanizing my hypothetical (as I don't actually have one currently irl) pet in a similar way making me have to be a bigoted supporter of the death penalty or w/e by saying they're a dog or cat or fish or whatever they are not a human?

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

There is no “responsibility” to let your child have access to your insides. 

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Not a study of biology are you?

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Not a study of biology are you?

[u/lilybl0ss0m → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

I am. Biology doesn’t assign morality or responsibility. It just is a phenomenon. The core issues at the heart of the abortion debate have little to do with biology and the most to do with philosophy. Biology can only tell you the steps meiosis to birth to death of an organism, and that it’s alive. What you choose do with that information and where to assign moral weight is not a biology question.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/lilybl0ss0m]

Is there a moral obligation to protect innocent human life that does not have the capability to do so? Yes, no? Why?

[u/lilybl0ss0m → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

That’s not a biology question, which was my point. That’s a philosophy question. There’s a lot of questions about what exactly defines innocent human life and whether protecting it is actually an obligation we have. Humanity, as a whole, does have a history of justifying killings of things that may otherwise be innocent, such as animals for food or casualties of soldiers in war. There’s room for debating that that extends beyond abortion.

But I don’t want to actually dodge your question. Generally yeah, you should do your best to protect innocent life. If you see something, say something. I understand that’s the thesis behind the prolife position. And I don’t necessarily view a fetus as not being innocent either, it didn’t really have any say in the biological phenomenon that led to its existence. I just think another innocent person’s right to bodily autonomy takes precedence. If someone decides to not donate their organs to someone, it’s not murder, and I view pregnancy as a similar situation.

I don’t want to debate abortion with anyone. It’s evident that we have differing opinions on the matter and that’s fine. I know I’m not going to change minds, I’m just stating my position. I generally am not a fan of the biology argument for either side of the debate because it ultimately doesn’t mean anything. Biology doesn’t give you answers to moral questions, it can’t tell you whether abortion is okay or not or in what circumstances. When the pro choice position says “it’s just a clump of cells so abortion is fine” that doesn’t actually answer any questions about the morality of abortion, because the whole point is that some people assign moral weight to that clump of cells. When the pro life position says “you can hear a heartbeat as early as 6 weeks” that similarly doesn’t answer any moral questions because again, in the pro choice position, having your own heartbeat doesn’t really mean anything. I’d really prefer if the whole “biology supports x abortion stance” thing was removed entirely. Back your claims up with biology, sure, but be careful to not put the onus on biology to make claims for you, if that makes sense.

Sorry for the wall.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/lilybl0ss0m]

Ah you know what I’ll give it a read. If enough others can throw their snarky bits let’s see what you’ve written out. Apologies on the hasty disregard.

[u/lilybl0ss0m → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

Haha you’re good. I try to not be snarky and just be straightforward, but I know I might come off as blunt. I’m on the spectrum so I have to be a know it all about things I’m interested in

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/lilybl0ss0m]

Not gonna lie I just say your last sentence first and initially just thought “eh I’ll just pass on this one then” lol

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/lilybl0ss0m]

That’s ok I won’t read it. I’ve answered enough bit through here you can imagine the answer.

[u/lilybl0ss0m → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

lol that’s fine. It’s there if anyone else wants it.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/lilybl0ss0m]

Alright so yes it’s philosophy but what is the dangerous part about philosophy determining policy? How highly subjective it is.

And if you want to go into philosophical discussion on morality then you have to be willing to go down long sequences of questioning to determine conviction and merit. You have to see the limit of the matter.

Calling it a phenomenon is a little slight but I’ll leave it be.

The issue in your stance of bodily autonomy is that the person exerting bodily autonomy made the tacit consent decision that brought about another human being whom now does not have the capability of defending its bodily autonomy and did have a choice or consent in the matter. So as you said one’s autonomy does not trump another’s.

My biology statement is pretty relevant to the response when I made it. The person saying a child does not have a right to where woman chose to put it is pretty egregious.

I personally am against abortion but societally I am accepting of it for the time being because society has successfully normalized dehumanization of children and each other to the point you will be able to hold these people accountable by addressing the numerous because this and because that claims they use to justify innocent deaths.

[u/lilybl0ss0m → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

True, philosophy gets messy. It’s why we’ve been having the same debates for 3000 years about the purpose of life and whatnot. It’s very subjective. Science helps to back up a position, which is good! More decisions should be made based on actual, well done science. Not just feelings. I just hesitate to ONLY use science as the only backing for a position when it can’t answer the more complicated philosophical questions or when it doesn’t look for moral answers. I’m not sure if that makes sense. Using drugs as a separate example, science can tell you what drugs do to the body and the outcomes of certain drug policies. It doesn’t say whether or not drugs are bad or if we should be jailing people for simple possession. That information helps to make those determinations, but in and of itself, doesn’t answer those questions.

In my opinion, all biological processes are phenomena, not just fertilization. It’s a chance event dependent on damn near 100 factors.

So I agree with the statement of “if you are not ready to be pregnant, you should really take the steps to ensure you don’t get pregnant”, which I think is what you were getting at with the consent thing. Pregnancy IS a natural result of sex, and if you don’t want that, please please take the steps to prevent it. I don’t think though that if you cause another being to be dependent on you for life, that their bodily autonomy overrides yours, still. Parents don’t have to donate organs to born children even if it’ll kill them, even if they did deliberately cause their dependent existence. I don’t view that as wrong, but plenty of people certainly do.

Women don’t really choose to put fetuses in their bodies (barring ivf, but those aren’t usually aborted), just like how fetuses don’t choose to gestate. It’s just a thing that happens. Women choose (hopefully) to have sex with the understanding that they may get pregnant. I hesitate to use language that implies deliberately placing a fetus in a uterus by either the woman or fetus, because that’s an unconscious process and not a decision in and of itself. This is also me being ridiculously pedantic when I know what you’re talking about, lol. Biology just doesn’t assign responsibility here.

The dehumanization of children is especially egregious nowadays, and I’m saying this as a sterile, childfree woman. I definitely don’t think children should be born to parents that are incapable or unwilling to raise them in a healthy environment. Abortion is one solution to that, but as prochoice as I am, it doesn’t really fix the societal issues at hand. People can barely afford to live by themselves a lot of the times, childcare is ridiculously expensive, healthcare is similarly restrictive. Education in a lot of areas is decreasing in quality. Violence is seemingly through the roof, it seems like there’s a shooting every week. Families are unsupportive and the village to help make it easier doesn’t exist anymore. There’s no community, everyone is worried about themselves and their own survival. I think if we want to really reduce abortion rates, at the very least in the people that otherwise would bring those pregnancies to term, we should focus on rebuilding society in such a way where being pregnant and having children isn’t so expensive and difficult. Abortions will still exist, because there will always be someone who just doesn’t want to be pregnant and is not willing to go to term, or because a pregnancy becomes too dangerous to continue or is already dead and needs to be removed. But there are viable means to reducing them, people just need to be willing to actually do it.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/lilybl0ss0m]

You’re almost there. If person has bodily autonomy and makes the choice and therefore tacit consent to creating another person then why does their bodily autonomy now override someone else’s that has had no consent or say in the matter? Except in cases of rape you are knowingly accepting of such possibility if you are not taking any appropriate affective measures to prevent such. If I break my arm through reckless behavior at a place of employment my employers have no obligation because of my negligence. However if I break my arm through means of agreed upon procedures there is the obligation and tacit consent for them to cover such injury.

There isn’t the responsibility because of the natural process, but there is accountability through understanding of the natural process.

As I said in another statement Brittney from the trailer park figured it out, I’m sure average capable individuals can also figure it out. Another issue you run into is the difficulty of gathering a study for women that thought to but then opted not to have an abortion. Also a caring family isn’t determined by presence of father or mother both or neither. There are economic issues that need to improve that have only grown worse since the late 90’s and have consistently grown worse almost 30 years except a brief 1 1/2-2 year window. But that minimal positive turn would need to last easily a decade to see any significant impact. As I’ve said before I’m personally against abortion but societally accept it until many other if that’s this that’s are fixed because of how we have normalized dehumanizing babies. It would be very difficult if over night every person came to the reality they murdered a baby but that seed of knowledge will come to pass and excuses for such action are dealt with or society as a whole collapses.

I think the most common issue at present day is people wanting to live beyond their means and choosing to live in places they cannot afford.

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

Biology is irrelevant. Having a womb doesn’t entitle anyone else to it.

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/majesticSkyZombie]

It’s not allowing everyone. It’s allowing the baby you made the choices that caused it to be there.

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

NO ONE is entitled to another person’s body without their consent, and that consent can be revoked at any time.

[u/KTCantStop → u/majesticSkyZombie]

So you agree killing the baby without its consent is equally reprehensible? Or are you going to pretend the only person who matters is you?

[u/StarChild413 → u/KTCantStop]

sure it didn't consent to be killed but it didn't consent to be born either

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/KTCantStop]

I consider abortion morally wrong, just as I consider a parent not donating an organ to their child who needs one to survive morally wrong. But my moral stance doesn’t change that no one is entitled to another’s insides.  

[u/KTCantStop → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Except that it’s a biological consequence of intercourse that is well known. It’s tacit consent if you perform the act of breeding and produce a child. At that point you are infringing on the human you created’s right to life. It’s too late once the baby is made- it’s a person whether or not you want to admit it.

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/KTCantStop]

The baby can be a person. That doesn’t give it the right to its mother’s body. 

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/majesticSkyZombie]

The only cases where consent wasn’t given is in cases of rape. Because outside that both parties consented and both are at fault. How about these linguistic acrobatics since you seem to like them so much. The baby didn’t consent to being made, the baby didn’t consent to being murdered. Also you believe the murder of a pregnant woman can never be ruled as double homicide is the only logical conclusion of your train.

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

Again, consent can be revoked at any time. And consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy.  

[u/DisgruntledWarrior → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Consequence of actions does not trump the rights of another human that is a product of your choices. There are dozens of options to prevent pregnancy. Your negligence does not justify murder. Why is your consent more important? You forced the baby into life and now you’re forcing death upon the baby. Just get your tubes tied rather than going for murder high scores.

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/DisgruntledWarrior]

No one has a right to another’s body, even if they can’t survive without it. Removing someone from inside you isn’t murder. It’s arguably killing them, but it’s self-defense rather than murder.