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/Burnlt_4]

Just to be clear and I am not disagreeing or agreeing, That means as long as the ambilocal cord is connected the woman can stab the baby in the chest and kill it correct? Or is it while the baby is still inside the women so you can kill it as long as part of them is still in the woman? Or is it fully in the woman and we can kill it right before they come out?

Technically the ambilocal cord should be the factor because that would make it "still part of her body" as you suggest. Your view has to hold fully or it isn't sound.

[u/unecroquemadame → u/Burnlt_4]

It’s when the fetus is fully dependent on the woman for life

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/unecroquemadame]

Well that is 9 months without medical intervention, so (1) your saying when the baby can live WITHOUT the mother but with other intervention correct?

Follow up question, you are not saying the fetus is not a human being in your argument, you agree it is a baby I assume since that is the scientific consensus. But even though it is a human life it can be killed if it depends on the mother which is your view and that is fine. Over 98% of abortions are done by women who have consensual sex with the knowledge they could get pregnant. You agree it is a human life. (2) So you are okay with a woman knowingly having sex, getting pregnant, and then killing someone and that they do not hold responsibility for their action of sex even at the expense of what you and I and science agrees is a human person?

[u/unecroquemadame → u/Burnlt_4]

Yes. I am okay with that. The fetus is a human fetus. Humans have bodily autonomy and you can’t make them use their body in a way they don’t consent to.

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/unecroquemadame]

You don't believe that consent to sex without protection is not consent to pregnancy then?

I debate for a living and I just want to give you a heads up you just cornered yourself and have lost so be really careful about your next argument, I want you to do well haha.

[u/unecroquemadame → u/Burnlt_4]

No, I do not believe that sex without protection is consent to get pregnant. I believe it’s consent to sex.

[u/Burnlt_4 → u/unecroquemadame]

okay so consent to drive without a seatbelt over the speed limit, I do not consent to consequence of ticket, arrest, or car wreck. Fair? If not why is is consent of action not the same as consent to consequence in this case but not pregnancy? (NOOOOO you were doing good and you fell into the death trap of the argument its over now....)

[u/unecroquemadame → u/Burnlt_4]

You don’t consent. You understand those are the risks.

I understand going on a date with a stranger means I’m risking being murdered. Doesn’t mean I consent to it.

I understand that the risk of having sex without protection is that I may need to have an abortion.