As part of 9th grade biology we had to read "Microbe Hunters". The grades ahead insisted that it was awful and boring but I devoured the whole thing in a weekend. So thankful that it was part of the curriculum.
Targeting profit rarely helps. The big players can afford the financial engineers to make the profits negligible from an accounting perspective. Likely funneled into growth. The small players cannot, so you put them in a situation where selling to a big player is rational. And the oligopoly grows.
The question there is _which_woman_? The one going to get the procedure or the one on the sharp end of needle? So the question one might ask you is "from whose perspective is murder trivial?"
Neither seem trivial to me, which is probably why it's such a contentious issue.
Framing it like you do seems mostly just to dehumanize the other side.
I'm probably with you in how we should treat this, but I also worry about the slippery slope problem - at what point is it no longer ok to abort? If six months, then why not six months and a day? Then why not a moment before birth? Then why not after birth? What is the magical moment where we say the "clump of cells" becomes "human"? Trying to answer that question feels like it unavoidably treads into religious grounds even for the non-religious.
Your questions are moot because functionally no one is at the end of a needle. No woman or doctor is going around willy nilly getting their jollies off killing viable fetuses.
> What is the magical moment where we say the "clump of cells" becomes "human"?
When that human is outside of another human. Until then, women and doctors should have ZERO risk of being held liable for decisions about saving the pregnant woman’s life that may have to be made in seconds in a rapidly changing medical situation.
It is a complete non issue (that is until the Repubs started banning women’s healthcare) burning untold resources of our nation’s political time and money.
>The question there is _which_woman_? The one going to get the procedure or the one on the sharp end of needle? So the question one might ask you is "from whose perspective is murder trivial?" Neither seem trivial to me, which is probably why it's such a contentious issue. Framing it like you do seems mostly just to dehumanize the other side.
In what world is this a coherent argument that people should look past these ideological divides in their relationships? You know, the actual disagreement at hand?
I'm guessing it's more to do with the interaction of the gravitational vectors of sun and moon. During a half-moon it is pulling at a right angle to the sun, during a new-moon with the sun, and during a full-moon against the sun.
Note also that all those old cards were done on physical media, whereas today almost all the cards are done digitally. So the modern cards are much more _detailed_. Check out the Jesper Ewing cards like Frantic Scapegoat. He's notable for creating real paintings. To me they capture a bit of the old feel.
But only because there was no will to sacrifice the wealth of the wealthiest, all a fiction of effectively fancy spreadsheets. Surprised this would catch up with us?
Those of us who have the foresight to make such sacrifices should also have the foresight to structure our investments to make them resilient against redistribution.
reply