let's get down to the true debate here. should women be able to vissit a doctor to get a procedure done in a safe and legal way. or should women just ingest dangerous chemicals or shove unsterilised imrovised tools into themselves and possibly be maimed and or die like the olden days/ as (a) god(s) intended in hope to achieve same results?
Warmongering is always an acceptable excuse to knock money out of the pockets of the people. You're not against the war are you? Because you're either with them or US! You're unpatriotic if you're not supporting this war!
I still think it's important to distinguish Race from Socio-Economic Class, at least when it comes to discussing Racism as being potentially a cause for these problems. Poor White, Latino, Asian, people have a lot of the same problems, with a lot of the same sources. I'm not saying that Racism isn't a factor in some cases (I think the woefully high homicide rate by Black people is part of this as well, though I'm not clear how much is cause and how much is effect) especially for police interactions/reactions to armed citizens. But it is greatly reduced, and largely in a downward trend IMO (though that doesn't mean it couldn't swing back up, let's hope it doesn't). As for being a Pyramid... It feels like more of a Funnel as far as shape and function, with an increasingly wide (in terms of population) "entrance" (the poor) and an increasingly narrow "exit" (the wealthy elite). Plus it keeps "funneling" wealth to the wealthy You posted about the wealth distribution between the 1% and the 99% in the US in another thread, which was very interesting and I think also very relevant. But so far I think I've only seen Oxfam do any studies related to wealth distribution WITHIN the 1% How much of the 1% is completely outclassed by the 0.001% for example? The tip of the pyramid/funnel might also be an issue. I mostly agree, with the proviso that the "top earners" are such a small portion of the population that it is not reasonable to expect distribution to be along racial lines. That would generally be much more about individual (and family) accomplishments. Even if there was zero racism and slavery in the history of the US, I don't think you'd end up with equal distributions along the lines of relative population. Even if for no other reason than that there are properties involving random chance when it comes to certain levels of success, and the impact individual performance has. And obviously it shouldn't be artificially made so that it goes along racial lines for the sake of it.
It's still a definitions issue. For some, that framing comes across as: "should women be able to visit a doctor in order to murder their child in a safe and legal way or should women be required to take a more dangerous route to attempt to murder their child?" I'm not saying that's necessarily the right view (let alone at all stages), but I think that hurdle in the debate is the most important one, far more so than safety vs. risk of the woman herself.
so boiling it down along those lines should only a few developing human die ( not suffer as there is no suffering in death) or should multitudes of women suffer ( alive but now maimed or long lasting poisoning effects) and the death toll be increased. choosing the word murder is interesting as somehow it is not murder if the 'victim' is the product of **** or incest ( though anti-incest laws are more to prevent a pedarast/pedophile enviroment than some sort of eugenics principle , wich incidentaly most people apparently think they are for and are apparently fine with)
The assumption is that the abortion is inevitable regardless of law. That's not a fair assumption. Say, for example, there was a legal process to get your neighbors killed (relatively easily). Would that raise the rate of people trying to kill their neighbors? Or would it merely help prevent the loss of life that might come should they screw up while trying to kill their neighbor, and help reduce the risks involved in trying to kill one's neighbor using illegal means (such as them defending themselves, or a third party getting involved using force). With Drugs, I would imagine legalization would (and has in some cases) increase Drug use. It still makes sense to do that, because Drug use is not necessarily the same thing as Drug Abuse. But more importantly, in most cases, people are merely harming themselves, rather than others or proto-others. Of course, there are instances of people endangering others by acting out while inebriated, but there are still laws around that, and with legalization people don't need to hide the condition as much (and thus might be able to get help as necessary, or at least be properly kept away from heavy machinery). There's also the question of whether or not the action should have punative repercussions. I'm not one of course, but I'm sure there are people that would argue that the self-maiming/poisoning of someone trying to kill their off-spring is "justified" by the "evils" of their actions. "They deserve it for trying to end the life of an innocent!" Or some such thought. On the note of suffering. There are reports of fetuses trying to escape/fight back against the implements of Abortion (the physical obviously), the fact is we don't know if they actually suffer, however briefly or not. It is also worth noting that the majority of people who believe in, for example "Life Begins At Conception" are people whom believe in an after-life, and they might argue that the child's suffering would carry on in their "soul" or what have you. I've never gotten the "or incest" thing. Surely if someone is having sex with children, that already counts as **** (at least in the US and other Western civilizations)? Or is it for the rare case of sibling incest, provided they are "technically of age" in their given State to give consent to someone in the same age group? But even so... that would ostensibly fall into the "we don't want inbred mutants like those freakish Royals in Europe" spectrum of Eugenics. *shrug* I guess I don't see why consenting incestuous couples should have more "rights" than non-incestuous ones. But mostly I think it's just become a meme. A phrase one strings together because it's always been strung together. In any event, in the case of ****, I think it's more a matter of "triage", or perhaps "justifiable homicide." Though there probably are some extremists that would see that as "murder" as well. After all, the child itself is innocent, and the rapist is the one that should be punished. But outside of that, it can be argued that ending one life to save another is the "right" thing to do, and indeed many make it. I'm personally more in the "triage" camp. Even considering there might not be a physical threat to the mother, the psychological damage could absolutely ruin her life*. I do, however, dislike those that argue similar reasoning for those that had consensual sex, except maybe those that otherwise did the natural precautions against pregnancy (though I'm more iffy on that point). They chose that risk themselves and all that, so if they weren't prepared for that possibility and it's outcomes, they shouldn't have taken that risk in the first place. *(Though for some women, they found solace in having something "good" come out of something terrible, but this is where Choice comes in.) But some of these are still equivocations. For the most part, I'm personally not convinced that a developing child IS a human until certain stages, so it's arguably a moot point for me personally. I still think it's a heavy decision to make, as it's still a potential human, and I'm certainly not set to believing this one way or another. Maybe some day I'll be convinced that it doesn't matter until the Cord is cut, or maybe I'll get persuaded into the "Conception" camp. I will, however, continue to heavily criticize any who support "post-birth abortions" (and yes there are people that do support that nonsense).
Ask the Journal of Medical Ethics. Too lazy to link the paper right now, but you can probably search for it (though I think you don't get the full paper unless you pay). Anyway, the basic argument is that a child, even one no longer in the womb, is not yet a "person" until they are considered to meet a certain criteria of sapience (in the view of those that wrote the paper). As such, "post-birth" abortions should be allowed in "all the instances" that normal abortions should be allowed in.
humans don't have personalities untill a while after they are born so they cannot be a person, I don't think the word abortion applies to it though or that neonaticide (or infanticide if 24 hours have passed)( or filicide if you want to indicate a parent did it)(language is fun) riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
