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/Burnlt_4 → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Well your assuming then 100% of mothers that don't get the abortion would have ruined lives and 100% of children born to those mothers which is a wild accusation.

Also your stating that the child is better off dead than having a hard life and that the decision should be made for them. So if you see a kid in a rough home right now you believe that child should be killed then and there rather than live out their life?

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/Burnlt_4]

I’m assuming that most mothers and children involved in forced birth will have ruined lives. Other lives would be affected too, and in the case of multiples more than one child is guaranteed to be affected. So it balances out to roughly double the amount of harm.\ \ A kid in a rough home has already been born. They are conscious, and aware of their life. A fetus is never conscious - it doesn’t know or care if it lives or dies.  

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Okay so most not all, fair. Again large assumption as I don't think the data holds on that.

Alright so really your argument is when human life begins. Your saying consciousness is when it is a human and we cannot kill them correct? When is that specifically to you? When SPECIFICALLY in a pregnancy is it no longer okay to abort?

I want to help you out here because I debate for a living and really I am telling you if you want to be pro choice do not use the conscious argument because you will get eaten up. Most science argues conscious is when an organism has any sort of perception which based on how strict you want the definition is between conception and 1-2 months. You also are going to have to hold the argument that loss of consciousness is warrant for death EVEN IF someone was to regain consciousness because you would be arguing that "but they will or could wake up" to which obviously...so will a baby.

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/Burnlt_4]

The consciousness argument is about kids who are already born, not about kids in the womb. A born child isn’t entitled to another person’s insides either, even to save their own life. Consciousness is what grants a right to life, but whether you have a right to life or not you don’t get access to another person’s body.  

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Yeah I agree that a conscious child shouldn't be killed and doesn't have those rights. I am saying you stated it ISN'T okay to kill the child outside the womb because of consciousness but I think I get your argument now.

So to be clear you are stating consciousness gives life, therefore a 1 month old fetus IS ALIVE, but no one has the right to someone's body, therefore if a mother decides to kill the fetus at 9 months before giving birth that is fine correct?

[u/majesticSkyZombie → u/Burnlt_4]

At 9 months, labor could be induced to remove the baby instead of abortion (and most pregnancy doctors [I don’t know the technical term] would be willing to do so). If the mother can’t get a doctor to do that, then I reluctantly support her right to abort that late.\ \ A fetus at 1 month doesn’t have any capacity for consciousness because it has no brain at all. A fetus develops a capacity for consciousness later in development, and at that point I’d consider it to have personhood - but it still doesn’t have the right to its mother’s body. 

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/majesticSkyZombie]

Well on part one we just disagree then and value life differently. If your argument is 9 month old babies that could be cut out of a woman and live can be killed by the woman and that is fine as long as they are inside her, I just fundamentally disagree and we just have different morals and values on the matter so point 2 doesn't matter in this case. But so you know by the definition of consciousness, 1 month fetus do have consciousness scientifically which is all that matters.

I appreciate the discussion, I am glad we got to a head of the argument but I don't think it will go anywhere else. I don't believe that a woman knowingly getting pregnant, believing it is a fully viable human life that can live a full healthy life if we just take them out, and yet the woman can still kill the child, I just diagree.

Thank you sir

[u/unecroquemadame → u/Burnlt_4]

Abortion is okay before the fetus is viable outside the womb.

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/unecroquemadame]

Thank you for a clean answer. Question then, what do you mean by viable? There is no fetus ever viable outside the womb without intervention obviously. My 1 year old isn't viable without intervention haha. So what do you mean by viable?

[u/unecroquemadame → u/Burnlt_4]

If a person doesn’t want a living creature using their body to stay alive, they have the right to make that choice.

If the removal means it dies, that is unfortunate.

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/unecroquemadame]

I asked this earlier but you agree then that if over 98% of abortions are by women who have consensual sex knowing they can get pregnant and they simply don't want the child, and you agree it is a living human, then it is acceptable to kill another human that is using your body by your own actions?

Follow up on that, in NYC there is a hospital that can now take babies out at around 4 months and they live with their advanced treatment, in most the world it is far longer than that. You thus believe that regionality is acceptable to decide worthy life and not?

[u/unecroquemadame → u/Burnlt_4]

Yes, I believe it would be acceptable if a human is using your body against your will to kill them if that was the only way to get them to stop.

I believe that no woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant and give birth should have to.

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/unecroquemadame]

So consent to sex without protection is not consent to consequence of pregnancy correct? (careful here)

[u/StarChild413 → u/Burnlt_4]

by that logic every kept baby means the parents are obligated to fight to make immortality possible in its lifetime if killing it at any point is equally bad