Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "By the Numbers: Abortion demographics | ABCNL" video.

  1.  @bernlin2000  What do you consider viability? The ability for a living thing to survive on its own? I've got news for you; we can't survive on our own for years after being born. That's not exactly a good way to find common ground.
    4
  2.  @freshencounter  I work at a shelter. I'm actively focusing on the welfare of children. I'm also against abortion. By your logic, since I'm actually doing the ground work and you're just virtue signalling, my opinion is more valid than yours.
    3
  3.  @partiallyparker  It's a good thing this isn't a human rights issue, then.
    2
  4. Why would anyone ask? Nobody cares about you.
    1
  5.  @bernlin2000  A woman's opinion that it's not a child is as valid as a racist's opinion that a POC isn't human. Opinions are not important. Human beings only give birth to other human beings. We don't sometimes have guinea pigs or cats. We only have human beings. Therefore, that "invasion" is a human being that has human rights. Since the vast majority of abortions come from consensual sex, that means that human being was put there through the informed consent of the mother (everyone old enough to procreate in the US knows that sex leads to pregnancy and that no birth control method is 100% effective). If I invite someone into my home, I don't get to then shoot them for trespassing. Infants aren't viable outside the womb. They will die without a caretaker. That being said - for the sake of ideological consistency - you can either believe that mothers can kill all children who can't yet take care of themselves or you can agree that "viability" is not the strong argument you think it is. Potential life is sperm swimming towards an egg. Life is the successful fertilization of said egg and the corresponding growth/development that follows. That development continues throughout the rest of our young lives, into adulthood. The fact that humans don't give birth to anything other than humans (as we already covered) means that human life begins at the very first stages of development.
    1
  6. "Black women have the highest rate of abortion." Yes, that's exactly what Margaret Sanger wanted. - An open racist comes up with a plan to keep black Americans from reaching the same population numbers as white Americans - to keep them from having any real voting power. - Democrats (the Party that brought you slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, and Margaret Sanger herself) continue to support the organization she built (Planned Parenthood) well into the 21st century. - Democrats keep predominantly black city centers impoverished, to keep black people from feeling like they should have more kids. - Planned Parenthood continues to ensure black Americans never get enough numbers to make a real difference. This is what you're fighting for. You're fighting to carry on the legacy of eugenics in America. You're openly supporting the work of someone who could have been on a bowling team with the likes of Dr. Mengele.
    1
  7.  @georgemartinez7861  That doesn't throw any arguments in the trash. The fact that there are 325,000 kids who have the chance to grow up and have lives is a very good thing. Many of us have/had terrible childhoods but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have been given the chance to make a better lives for ourselves. My best friend was badly abused growing up. Now he has a loving wife and two wonderful children. Shall I tell his kids that "George Martinez" says they shouldn't exist because their father should have been aborted? Should I tell his wife that her happiness is an illusion because she's married to someone who should never have been born? You're a disgusting person.
    1
  8.  @IndianaSmallmouth  Which party controls the majority of predominantly black urban centers? That's right it's the Democrats. You want to blame Republicans for the way Democrats are treating black people? Sorry, no dice.
    1
  9.  @allendean9807  I work at a 501c(3) shelter. We work with anyone needing assistance (food, shelter, employment, pretty much anything). I don't keep the statistics on our clients but we see quite a few who have/had unwanted pregnancies (the fact is, the vast majority of pregnancies in the US are unintentional). The outcome for the unwanted pregnancies that result in a child is that those children have a chance at a life. 100% of the unwanted pregnancies that go the other way result in the children not having a chance at a life. One of my coworkers has been doing this for over twenty years. A lot of the children she has helped keep in contact with her into adulthood. She tells me that more of them have made better of their lives than haven't. That's anecdotal but really, it doesn't matter that it is. Children are growing up and getting the chance to live. That's the single most important right we have. With life, there's hope. Without it, there's none.
    1
  10.  @allendean9807  Okay, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. You're saying: - A fetus is not a life, so doesn't have rights. - A mother is a life, so does have rights. - A mother has to carry the burden of either raising or putting a child up for adoption, so she is the only one whose opinion matters. - It's not okay to limit a woman's "right" to an abortion for the sake of the fetus. - We don't have the proper systems in place to care for unwanted children. - People who are pro-life are unilaterally opposed to said systems (even though the last March for Life rally had a fair share of Liberals and Progressives in attendance on the pro-life side). - If said systems were in place, it would then be okay to violate a woman's "right" to an abortion because the kids would have easier lives than under present circumstances. I highlighted the two important bits. Abortion is either a right or it's not. Talking about accommodations as though they are the deciding factor as to what the government does and does not have the authority to control is a flawed argument. Either a woman always has the right to abort a child, or it's merely a medical treatment that can be regulated by the government. It simply cannot be both. Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution. Let me explain: - In more than 99% of cases, women seeking abortions have already had choices they made. Those choices lead to pregnancy because at the end of the day, there is only one natural act that can lead to that result. Cause and effect are pretty straightforward in this matter and Sex Ed starts in middle school for most people. It's an informed decision. - A debate on when something is a fetus, a baby, a toddler, etc is unnecessary. It's a life from the time it starts developing and it's a human because humans don't sometimes create penguins or toaster ovens in their wombs. So, it's a human life. - If someone knowingly chooses the one act that creates a human life and then said act is successful, nobody should be shocked or upset about that. - If a human life matters at all, the circumstances of its upbringing are secondary to its fundamental right to life, itself. Yes, it's good to take care of those in need. Yes, we should definitely be doing better. No, that doesn't mean that anyone who is to be born into bad circumstances should have their life forfeited, "just in case" they might have a hard life. Plenty of people have started out at the bottom. The vast majority don't kill themselves. I take that to mean they'd rather be alive - regardless of how their mother may have felt about them.
    1
  11.  @allendean9807  I did read it and then responded with a wall-o-text of my own.
    1