No they are institutions built by the predominant culture of the countries founders. There is nothing insidious about it. It is no different than China being set up for Chinese or Mexico being set up for Mexicans or Kenya set up to benefit Kenyans. It is a normal state that may need to evolve as the national. Evolves but is not anymore racist than every other country in the world. Ignorance denies reality. Truth is the US has allowed more peoples of varied races and backgrounds to excel and change their economic status than any other country in the world.

LOL SMH

Trying? You’ve blamed us for everything…meanwhile, all we do is work hard, protect the family unit, pay taxes, defend the nation and pay for all social programs that the lazy and illegals exploit.

“And harass members of the LGBTQ+ community,”

Trans biological males are allowed to complete at the highest levels of biological female sports competitions. Check your privilege.

“try to suppress voting rights, take away women’s reproductive choice,”

The reproductive choice was made before intercourse.

“rising inequality as a result of unfettered capitalism”

This statement is not only ignorant, it is contradictory.

I’m pleasantly surprised systemic racism wasn’t invoked in your confused rant as well.

Actually, it's sort of does. For instance, if a woman had a 2 year old child, that is technically "after intercourse", so should she be allowed to kill it? No. It's the same with unborn children. By engaging in that activity, that is causally related and naturally ordered towards creating a new life, you would expect a new life to come about, and thus it would be your responsibility, and so you shouldn't be able to kill it. Now, technically it is legal, but so were death camps in Nazi germany. So not everything that is legal is right, or moral.

*Germany

She doesn't. But there are certain aspects of "bodily autonomy" that are, indeed regulated, and rightly so.

No, what you're doing is missing my point.

Really? So let me ask you something should a father be expected to use his body to work and provide food, clothing, and housing to his children, or at least monthly child support checks? Even if he "doesn't want to"? Of course you should. That's exactly the logic I'm applying to the mother. She must use her body to provide a safe environment for the baby to grow during its earliest and most vulnerable stages of life. Now, I'm not saying that women are merely an environment, rather, that they provide such care as keeping a pregnancy to their child. My position merely states that a woman, just as a man, should have to use her body to care for the children that she helped to create.

I'm not saying they are the same thing. All I'm saying is that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right.

What I'm saying is that a woman should be expected to use her body to provide for the child that she helped to create in the same way that a man must use his.

Actually, that was exactly what the woman was doing by engaging in sexual intercourse. That is how babies are made after all. And by the dictionary definition of pregnancy, by the time the woman is pregnant, a child has already been created and is living. And thus said child must be protected.

Really? I provided examples to backup my reasoning. You just said "flawed" with only a couple examples.

Okay, you seem to be missing my point. By the time a woman is pregnant, even just one or two days pregnant, there is already a child. And thus that child is worth protecting. To say that that is not a child is absolutely ridiculous. This argument also brings us back to my point from before. If I killed my two-year-old because I "didn't want him anymore*, that would be wrong, right? The same logic applies to unborn children if you create that life, you are obliged to help nurture it, even if that means "using your body".

So you're differentiating so that a woman doesn't have to use her body, but a man does? If I didn't know any better, I'd say that's a little sexist. But let me ask you something - why not? After all, they use their body to create the child, so why should they not also be expected to use their bodies accordingly, to care for the child?

My logic is flawed? Why?

I'm not advocating for people to be forced to donate their kidneys. However, in relation to a pregnancy, there are a few key differences between that and a kidney donation. Number one - in a pregnancy, the uterus remains part of the person's body, whereas in a kidney donation it is removed. Number two - probably the most important, in the case of a sick person and a potential donor, the donor presumably had nothing to do with the cause of the sick person's ailment. However, in a pregnancy, the woman and man are the sole cause of the baby's existence. So, logic holds, they should be responsible for caring for that child that they brought into the world, even if it means "using their bodies".

Neither does his.

That's called "equality"!!!! SMH

“And her choice..”

Stop being a transphobic. Men can get prego, too you know.

“Are trans people privileged to have such high suicide attempt rates?”

Mental illness.

“To have such high arrest and incarceration rates?”

Criminal behavior.

“To be more likely to live in poverty than the general population?”

Mental illness/drug abuse.

“They are the most misunderstood individuals”

At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming others for being misunderstood.

“reject their right to proper healthcare and respect of their gender identity.”

Body mutilation is not healthcare, its a sign of untreated mental illness.

“Really? Choice was made before sex? Because I’ve heard conservatives cry that women must carry rape babies to term.”

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Why punish someone else for a crime they didn’t commit. The rapist should be punished, not a child. The left always says violence should not be met with violence. Practice what you preach.

“How is that statement contradictory? It’s exactly right if you know anything about policy and history.”

You honestly think subsidies, grants ,and special interest lobby are “unfettered capitalism.” Its actually socialism, the very thing you praise that made and select few rich and powerful off of your tax money and changed laws to to suit them and not you.

“Conservatives are individuals and thus cannot alone perpetuate systemic racism. It’s something built into our institutions”

Lol! There it is! Everything his racist..
And another contradictory statement, to boot! Individual attitudes are exactly what perpetuate racism.

Once again, leftists like you do not understand personal responsibility. Everything is always someone else’s fault. That mindset is exactly why the change your desire will never happen, because since it’s someone else’s fault it must also be their responsibility to change it for you.

Oppression... Like... Being the candidate that gets a job despite being equally qualified with another? Or... Having standards lowered so that you can get into college? That doesn't sound like oppression to me... Well, it is, just not towards the group you think...

Abortion isn't violence, eh? And have you ever, you know, seen one? No? Perhaps you should look into it. They are violent, very invasive procedures. How is it not punishing the child? He has to die because his father committed a horrible crime. I'm all for punishing the rapist severely. But the child is just as much a victim as the mother. Also, I never said they had to keep their baby. Just not kill it.

Change... Like... Lowering college admissions standards so that minority students have an unfair advantage over others in the application process? Or maybe you want mob rule, like in the CHAZ? Yeah, I'm going to stick to my conservative policies...

Aha. Maybe you should look at pictures, or maybe watch a few videos. From unbiased, medical sources.

Much of the time, they are fooled into thinking that it is the only option, or that they are not that invasive. They are.

Take my example from before. A parent shouldn't be able to kill her two-year-old because he/she "doesn't want it anymore", . My position simply states that that right to life also extends to unborn children.

I am referring to a pregnancy, and after birth, as there is no evidence that the unborn baby is not alive. Call it a zygote, call it an embryo, call it a fetus, call it whatever you wish - it is still alive, and a human.

Yes, and some liberals want to execute all conservatives. But the vast majority don't. And that is who I'm referencing - the vast majority of conservatives.

Of course. But when "making choices" becomes the ending of human life, then we would have to draw the line. Also, it's not really her body. It's the body of the unborn baby. Really, I think it's you who doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

Let me guess - the examples that I showed don't count, right?

They are not violent, or even invasive, is simply on true. I'll ask you again - have you ever seen one? No? And perhaps, as I said before, you should look into it. Look into the many different, and very vicious, methods of abortion. Including early, first trimester ones.

Not necessarily. As I showed before, sometimes the parent's rights must be overruled to preserve life. The rights of both parents.

Why not? After all, they are the one who brought that innocent life into the world. The baby didn't want to be there. But now that it is there they have responsibility to care for it.

LOL.
As much as you liberals want to believe, we can service our not regressive. In fact, we are all four progress. But abortion is not progress. It's a regress. It's back to survival of the fittest, instead of caring for the weakest members of our society.

"They are not violent, or even invasive, is simply on true. I'll ask you again - have you ever seen one?"

I haven't, but I've read about them

"Look into the many different, and very vicious, methods of abortion. Including early, first trimester ones"

You would think that if it's so violent any vicious, women wouldn't get them every single day in this country.

"Not necessarily. As I showed before, sometimes the parent's rights must be overruled to preserve life. The rights of both parents."

Why?

"Why not? After all, they are the one who brought that innocent life into the world. The baby didn't want to be there. But now that it is there they have responsibility to care for it."

Are you referring to a pregnancy, or after the birth has happened?

"As much as you liberals want to believe, we can service our not regressive. In fact, we are all four progress"

It depends on the conservative. Some conservatives do actually want to take us back many decades and undo all of the progress we've made over the past century

"But abortion is not progress. It's a regress. It's back to survival of the fittest, instead of caring for the weakest members of our society."

Protecting a woman's right to make choices about her own body is progress. We live in a society where women are no longer treated as pieces of property like they used to be, and where they couldn't even make choices about their own medical needs. And abortion has literally nothing to do with survival of the fittest. You don't seem to understand what that term means.

Okay, and can you back up your disagreement with logic or reasoning?

You are right. After a woman gives birth, the correct terminology to use would be murder or homicide. My position simply holds that that right to life should be extended upon the most vulnerable members of our species, the unborn.

So if it's alive, and if it's human, and if it is an individual member of our species, with DNA totally indistinguishable from that of an adult, with no other genetic code matching it in existence, then shouldn't we preserve it?

The primary target of an abortion procedure is the body of The unborn child, not the mother it's still an invasive procedure for the mother but she is not the one that is being harmed, and presumably her life does not end at the abortion clinic.

“If a group of people is disproportionately subject to harassment, oppression, and bigotry, that is not their fault.”

What group are you taking about?

“When black people in the United States faced physical assault and murder just for walking down the street, would you say they just needed to take personal responsibility?”

Black people are not being systemically attacked for walking down the street.

The perpetrators of the crime need to be held personally responsible. In the case of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, lynch mobs and the like. These practices have been outlawed, publicly scorned and now actively being replaced with regressive new policies have been enacted such as affirmative action and race based social justice initiatives. The hypocrisy is tone def and astounding.

Furthermore, ou are attempting to blur the argument by blending two separate groups into one argument. One is ethnicity, the other is a sexual preference/ identification group.

You will need to give statistics to prove your separate claims that:
1.Blacks are being disproportionately being afflicted by this and by whom.
My guess is Black on black crime is responsible for this statistic. Therefore the black community needs to take personal responsibility for their situation.
2: Lgbt community is also being afflicted by this and by whom.
My guess is that this community is also being afflicted by the same Lgbt members of that community.

While they are separate distinct groups, both groups are responsible for a higher proportion of drug use, mental illness, sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violence, and single parent households. People do not want to subject themselves to people that have that kind of baggage and distance themselves.

“Abortion isn't violence, and it's not punishing a "child". You seem to think that if somebody gets pregnant because they got raped, they have to carry that pregnancy for nine months, even if they don't want to, and even if it would be emotionally traumatic for them.”

Unnaturally ending a human life is violence. By choosing an abortion, the woman has to deal with the trauma of a rape and the guilt of being responsible for ending a human life. Solving the violence of one party with more violence on an unreasonable party is not a solution. It’s a perpetuation.

“And yet when "leftists" try to enact change, people like you criticize them”

Not all change is good. No one is immune to being criticized.

"What group are you taking about?"

LGBTQ people

"Black people are not being systemically attacked for walking down the street"

I didn't say they are now, I said they used to be

How is replacing segregation with affirmative action hypocrisy? Are white people being forced to use separate drinking fountains and waiting rooms?

"Furthermore, ou are attempting to blur the argument by blending two separate groups into one argument. One is ethnicity, the other is a sexual preference/ identification group"

Being LGBTQ isn't a preference. It's a characteristic like race or eye color.

"Lgbt community is also being afflicted by this and by whom.
My guess is that this community is also being afflicted by the same Lgbt members of that community"

So when an LGBTQ person gets assaulted or murdered for who they are, you're just going to assume the attacker was LGBTQ? How convenient. I guess I can do the same with conservatives and Christians.

"both groups are responsible for a higher proportion of drug use, mental illness, sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violence, and single parent households. People do not want to subject themselves to people that have that kind of baggage and distance themselves"

And instead of trying to figure out why that's the case, you just want to judge them and assume they're all bad.

"Unnaturally ending a human life is violence"

Not always, no

"By choosing an abortion, the woman has to deal with the trauma of a rape and the guilt of being responsible for ending a human life. Solving the violence of one party with more violence on an unreasonable party is not a solution. It’s a perpetuation."

Do you believe that if somebody gets pregnant because they were raped, they should be legally required to carry that pregnancy for nine months, even if they don't want to?

“LGBTQ people”

Lgbt people are not being systemically attacked for simply walking down the street. This a ludicrous assertion. The cases are such a tiny minority of crime it’s insufficient. I would dare to say that there are more hoax’s than actual events.

“I didn't say they are now, I said they used to be”

So your equivalency argument is irrelevant.

“How is replacing segregation with affirmative action hypocrisy? Are white people being forced to use separate drinking fountains and waiting rooms?”

Because affirmative action is based on race. POC segregation on college campuses is one example of regressive hypocrisy.

“Being LGBTQ isn't a preference. It's a characteristic like race or eye color.”

This is a false equivalency. Race and eye color are genetic. There is no lgbt gene. Your statement dehumanizes people by insinuating that individuals cannot decide what lifestyle they want to live.

“So when an LGBTQ person gets assaulted or murdered for who they are, you're just going to assume the attacker was LGBTQ?”

People are disproportionately attacked by domestic partners or people they closely associate with. So statistically my statement would be true.

“I guess I can do the same with conservatives and Christians.“

Except not all conservatives are Christians and not all Christians are conservatives. Religion has no bearing on the morality or political leanings of a person.

“And instead of trying to figure out why that's the case, you just want to judge them and assume they're all bad.”

No one said all. Poor life choices, lack or responsibility, bad moral character and luck lead to bad life situations. Living an indiscriminate life contributes to suffering. People use judgement of others by appearance and character for self preservation. People need to prove themselves trustworthy. It’s a case by case basis.

“Not always, no”

Most of the time, yes.

“Do you believe that if somebody gets pregnant because they were raped, they should be legally required to carry that pregnancy for nine months, even if they don't want to?”

Yes, children should not be murdered for the evil of their fathers. Rape pregnancies account for less than 1% of abortions, while 99% of abortions are for lack of personal responsibility. Rape isn’t objectively a good reason when arguing for the justification of a barbaric practice.

Furthermore, a large percentage of rape victims have decided to have the child.

Actually they are being attacked, quite a bit.

2021 was the deadliest year for murders of trans people.

No, just getting shot at for jogging or for delivering for Amazon in neighborhoods where they 'don't belong.'

"Lgbt people are not being systemically attacked for simply walking down the street"

That's not what I said. I said they are "disproportionately subject to harassment, oppression, and bigotry"

"The cases are such a tiny minority of crime it’s insufficient. I would dare to say that there are more hoax’s than actual events."

Would you say the same thing about attacks on conservatives?

"Race and eye color are genetic. There is no lgbt gene"

How do you know?

"Your statement dehumanizes people by insinuating that individuals cannot decide what lifestyle they want to live"

Being LGBTQ isn't a "lifestyle" any more than being black is a lifestyle

"People are disproportionately attacked by domestic partners or people they closely associate with. So statistically my statement would be true."

No, it would be an assumption. And I'm referring specifically to hate crimes anyway.

"Except not all conservatives are Christians and not all Christians are conservatives. Religion has no bearing on the morality or political leanings of a person."

I agree

"Poor life choices, lack or responsibility, bad moral character and luck lead to bad life situations. Living an indiscriminate life contributes to suffering"

You're basically blaming LGBTQ people for stuff that isn't always their fault. There have been cases of LGBTQ teens kicked out of their home by their own parents, and they end up homeless.

"People use judgement of others by appearance and character for self preservation."

That doesn't make it right

"Yes, children should not be murdered for the evil of their fathers"

They aren't being murdered.

And why does an embryo have rights which supersede the rights of the rape victim? You seem to care more about an embryo than the actual rape victim.

"Rape pregnancies account for less than 1% of abortions, while 99% of abortions are for lack of personal responsibility"

That is a false dichotomy. The options are not "rape" or "lack of personal responsibility".

"Rape isn’t objectively a good reason when arguing for the justification of a barbaric practice"

Who cares? It's a subjectively good reason.

"Furthermore, a large percentage of rape victims have decided to have the child"

That's irrelevant as to whether or not it should be an option.

This is why I love conservative logic and reasoning so much. It’s so simplistic. They don’t even bother to look into the issue and research at all, because they are confident that they know what the problem is, even if their solutions do nothing to help. Conservatives are the most ethnocentric f**kers on the planet.

Trans folks have high suicide attempt rates because their gender identity is not respected by those around them. Research shows calling them by their preferred name and pronouns reduces suicide risk substantially.

Trans folks are also targeted for arrest. Many have been arrested on mere suspicion of being prostitutes, even though they are not. This answer made me laugh the most. ‘“Criminal behavior” is what makes them subject to arrest and incarceration’. That’s like saying the country became 500% more criminal after 1980, because that’s the rate that our prison population increased. But no, we have to blame individuals! Never the government policies that helped induce that exploding prison population.

Is hormone therapy “body mutilation” too? And yes, gender reassignment surgery is legitimate healthcare. Most of the time, it helps trans people feel comfortable in their bodies. Don’t you think that’s important?

What do trans people have to take responsibility for? Just accept the bullying and harassment they receive, and the violent attacks and murders members of their community face? Just take responsibility, not anyone else’s fault?

There have always been subsidies to enterprises, but the way policy has tried to provide a favorable “business climate”, it has been in the form of generous corporate tax cuts, privatization, deregulation, etc. This is part of the neoliberal agenda, a return to free market capitalism that has been guiding public policy since the late 1970s. That’s embarrassing that you think subsidizing the rich is socialism, especially under a capitalist economy. Obviously you don’t know what socialism is.

What has a better shot at perpetuating racism? Individuals, or top-down institutions? Hint: it’s the latter.

All of your arguments come from a place of extreme emotion. Almost no reasoning or logic behind it. You can’t make an argument without cussing and insults. This is why people don’t care to understand your point of view. Your attitude is terrible and abusive. You are the one who sounds “triggered.”

I cussed once. This is just your excuse not to read what I said, probably because you don’t have a response and know that you are wrong.

What sort of "reproductive Rights" are you talking about? The "right" to kill an innocent human being?

More like the right to family planning, and the right to determine their own destinies by choosing to or not to have children. This includes abortion.

Okay, let me ask you something- suppose a woman decides that she does want to keep her baby. She gives birth, and 2 years later the small family begins to run into financial trouble. She decides that she doesn't want her 2-year-old anymore and kills him. Would it be right then? No. My position simply argues that that right to life is inherent to all human beings, regardless of their stage of development.

The baby after 2 years is no longer an embryo or a fetus, it isn’t directly connected to the mother’s body and does not depend on her body for blood, fluids and nutrients. You’re making a ridiculous comparison that you know is not the same.

And you are missing my point. I'm saying that justifications often presented for abortion, such as "I don't want a child" or "I don't have enough money" do not actually work to justify the ending of a human life. No matter if that human life is 2 years old, newborn, or a fetus, which, in case you didn't know, literally translates from Latin to "little one".

The former is family planning, the latter is murder.

If one is murder, they both are. This isn't an "either-or" thing.

You bring up examples that aren't remotely what anyone is talking about

And you missed the point of those examples. The point of my example was to show that your reasons for justifying abortion... Do not actually justify abortion!

Trying to say that abortion is wrong by comparing a pregnancy to a two year old toddler doesn't make any sense

Why not?

After all, they are both human lives.

The only real difference is their level of development, and their environment.

Also, the point I'm trying to make is that "I don't want it anymore" wouldn't be used as a justification for killing a 2 year old, so why should it be used to justify killing an even more vulnerable unborn child?

If you plant a seed and then dig it up five minutes later, is that the same as letting it grow to a height of 2 or 3 feet and then cutting it down? Of course not

As I've said before, the overwhelming majority of abortions, at least 90%, occur in the first trimester, at a stage of development so early that the embryo or fetus can't feel any pain and couldn't survive outside the womb anyway. So to compare that to killing a toddler is completely inaccurate.

Let me ask you something. That seed you described, does it or does it not have a genetic code indistinguishable from that of an adult member of its species, or a tree? It does. So does can unborn baby. No matter how early. So, therefore, it is a member of the human species and is worth protecting come out from the moment of conception onward.

As I've said before, I understand that. But here's another question - if I knock someone unconscious, then kill him, will it be okay, since he "doesn't feel any pain"? Or if a baby was born in a comatose state, with a 99.99% chance of waking up from that coma in one week, would it be okay to kill him? No. The unborn child, no matter how small, is a human life and is therefore worthy of protection.

Lmfao. Yeah, there are no LGBTQ+ conservatives. By the way…

LGBTQ+ = Let’s Get Biden To Quit