Minorities have voted for Democrats since the 1930s New Deal. Why hasn't their lot in the USA improved since then?

If you're a nihilistic phycopath it "isn't a problem" but to the rest of society with an objective moral compass. Yes, it's a huge problem.

94% of abortions are performed for convenience, 1% are due to rape or incest, and about 5% are for medical reasons-though doctors have testified that aborting a baby for medical necessity is exceptionally rare. You are trying to establish the rule by using the exception.

Apparently it was too much truth for the imgflip moderators. They unfeatured it for violating their terms of services.

Abortion is a whole ass ethical debate, brother.

Among other things. Yes, it is an ethical debate. I'm not sure how that's relevant to them unfeaturing my post though.

Check your notifications, they would have given you the reason for unfeaturing it.

Yeah, I already said why: because it violated their terms of service. More specifically, 'racist stereotypes'-which is a joke because all the data in that meme can be verified. It's factual. Sure, the urinating part is a metaphor, but what Democrats are doing to the Black race is far worse than urinating on them. They're facilitating genocide against the Black race.

Oh, um, yeah, that.

Guy's meme gets unfeatured for racist stereotypes

then he points fingers at the Democrats for facilitating genocide.

Good grief

And the 99.9% of that 1% give birth and either raise the child themself or give the baby up for adoption.

You're not conscious, sentient, or self-aware when sleeping. Therefore, can I stab you in your sleep? Your attempt to justify murdering your offspring is absurd. As a matter of fact, the fact that a person's offspring is more vulnerable when in the early stages of human development in its mother's womb-just as a fully developed human would be in their sleep-makes the act of abortion that much more immoral and grotesque. You've argued for your own callousness and immorality here-not the justified slaughter of the unborn.

Sleep is an altered state of consciousness, not a total absence of it. A sleeping person's brain remains highly active, it processes dreams and gathers and forgets information, a fetus doens't do that, it doens't have any information, so your sleep analogy is trash.

Claiming that sleep is merely an 'altered state of consciousness' changes absolutely nothing about the reality of the scenario. As far as this discussion is concerned regarding self-awareness and self-defense against a lethal threat, consciousness is functionally absent-you cannot sense an attacker coming, nor can you defend yourself.

In terms of vulnerability and active self-awareness against an incoming attack, a sleeping person and an unborn baby are in the exact same position. Hiding behind the claim of an 'altered state' doesn't change the fact that your logic still justifies killing someone in their sleep simply because they aren't actively aware enough to stop you.

Furthermore, your argument fails on every other front:

1. The 'Fetus' Semantic Fallacy: 'Fetus' is Latin for 'offspring' or 'young one.' It describes a stage of development (like 'adolescent' or 'senior'), not a species. It tells us how old a human is, not what a human is.

2. Scientific Reality: Conception creates a distinct, living human organism with unique DNA. Growth is continuous; passing through the birth canal is just a change of location, not a change of species or moral worth.

3. Biblical Truth: Human value isn't earned by cognitive performance. God created humans in His image (Genisis 1:27), and He knows and owns the unborn child from conception (Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5). Scripture uses the exact same word (brephos) for a baby in the womb as a baby in the manger (Luke 1:41, 2:12).

Calling the sleep analogy 'trash' isn't a counter-argument. You can dismiss it all day, but until you can construct a sound logical syllogism showing how a sleeping person has enough consciousness to sense an incoming attack and defend themselves, your objection remains completely empty.

1. A sleeping person has already personality, memories, goals,... But their consciousness is currently on pause. An early fetus doesn't have the brain capacity to form or hold consciousness. sleep is vulnerable because you're body shuts down active defense systems and reduce sensory awareness, but your brain is still processing information, and removing "uneeded" information when the state of a fetus is the pre-development of those abilities.

2. Linguistic history doens't change anything about this ethical debate, there are words that don't make sense.

3. Everything in the human body, even with you right now, has human DNA; your cells, your tissue, your organs. Even if you have something like skin cancer, skin cancer has human DNA but has to be removed.

4. The Bible has so many texts and so many interpretations, there is also Genesis 2:7, life begins when God breathes the "breath of life" into Adam, and Exodus 21:22-25, the Mosaic law penalizes causing a miscarriage less severely than causing the death of the mother. So its up to interpretation and religion is so diverse, Christianity inst the only religion, so using it as an argument inst the best option.

1. On Consciousness & Value: You’re just restating your priors, not answering my refutation. The fact that an unborn human doesn't yet have active memories or a formed personality in no way diminishes their intrinsic worth-unless you hold a deficient worldview that reduces human value strictly to current functional output. You're begging the question by assuming personality defines value to prove a fetus has no value.

2. On Language: Nobody mentioned "linguistic history"-I’m talking about words as they function today. Defining "fetus" as a stage of human development (like "adolescent" or "senior") is standard modern biology. If you want to throw out how language currently categorizes reality, that’s your problem to solve, not mine.

3. On Cancer vs. A Fetus: Comparing a human child to skin cancer is a massive false equivalence. A cancer cell is a part of a body that destroys life. A fetus is a whole, distinct human organism growing as it's designed to.

4. On Scripture & Truth: Pointing out that "diverse interpretations" exist isn't an argument. There are infinite wrong answers to 2 + 2, but only one correct answer.

Genesis 2:7 is the special creation of Adam from dust, not biological reproduction.

Exodus 21:22–25 in the original Hebrew text actually applies "life for life" if the child dies prematurely.

Your position relies on circular reasoning, false equivalences, and moving goalposts. Logic requires objective truth, and without a God of "oughts" as a foundation, your framework just reduces human rights to arbitrary preference.