If abortion is not considered murder, then why is it considered double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed?
Ah, the good old double standard.Democrats say it is a woman’s right to have an abortion. Republicans don’t. They call it murder. But, they both agree that when a man kills a woman, who is pregnant, he should be punished. To make sure he gets a “fair” punishment, they nail him with two murder charges, even if he didn’t know she was pregnant. She might even not know it. It’s how “our” system works.Now, I can see it if she’s clearly pregnant and, knowing this, he kills her. But, politicians and others are exempt from this, even if they KNOW she’s pregnant. In fact, this is the reason some women have been murdered in the first place.To me, it’s simple. The baby hasn’t taken it’s first breath. Until it is apart from the mother, it’s part of the mother. Her choice. Now, I’m against abortion. But, the woman has to carry and care for the baby for 9 months, give birth, and then watch after it if she decides to keep it for up to 18 years. She decides on its treatments, what it eats, what it wears, and so on. If she decides that it should have a vaccine that kills it, will she be punished? Now, if she doesn’t have the vaccine, there are those who would have her lynched, but not the other way around.Years ago, Roe v. Wade decided this. Now, it’s up for debate again. We have a right winger in office and it’s endangered. So, it’s double murder. If a sane democrat got in, it wouldn’t be. The fact is, it’s better and safer if it is legal and left to the mother than the state. Of course, the state doesn’t care how many women die during illegal abortions, or how many get sick and injured. They claim it’s a matter of safety and all that, but it really is about their power and getting votes.We need sanity in this government. It is either murder for having an abortion AND a double murder if a man murders a pregnant woman (might help stop violence against women, but I doubt it) or it isn’t murder for an abortion and the man doesn’t face a double charge.But, we have a two party system and it’s messed up. This is one of those debates that split most people up and keep the same old problems going generation after generation. I’m actually surprised the republicans aren’t for Prohibition again and the democrats aren’t against it. Or, to make it interesting, the democrats are anti alcohol while being pro drugs. Anything to confuse people, you know?
Should anti-vaxxers be segregated from those who do vaccinate and those who are immunosuppressed?
Previous answers presume that vaccinated people cannot be carriers of the disease against which they have been vaccinated, which is untrue.No vaccine is 100% effective, and those vaccines that carry some efficacy are not always effective for an entire lifetime. So not only is it possible for vaccinated people to carry a disease, it has been proven in some of the measles outbreaks that vaccinated people were responsible for helping to spread the disease, if not actually starting the outbreak.Even if someone claims to be vaccinated, they may not have kept up on boosters. And even if all vaccines are up-to-date, sometimes effectiveness has worn off or they were never effective in the first place, so vaccinated persons should not necessarily be considered to be safe when coming in contact with those who are immunosuppressed/immunocompromised.The original question presumes that all “anti-vaxxers” are ill or carrying diseases that might be prevented by vaccines. A better question would be, “Should ANYONE (vaccinated or unvaccinated) who is displaying symptoms of illness be segregated from those who are immunosuppressed?” Of course the answer is YES, particularly since there are many diseases (the common cold for instance) that cannot be vaccinated against, assuming that they would all even be effective!Since it’s impossible to know if someone is carrying a disease just by looking at them in the absence of symptoms—vaccinated or not— it is incumbent on the immunosuppressed/immunocompromised person to follow the protocol for such persons to keep themselves as safe as possible. Said protocol includes segregating from recently vaccinated persons as some of them can pass on the disease for which they have been recently vaccinated.Alhough I disagree that it is necessary to ROUTINELY segregate the immunosuppressed/immunocompromised from anyone unvaccinated, persons with a suppressed/compromised immune system should decide for themselves if segregating from one group or another is warranted or will give them peace of mind.
Will Facebook's campaign against "anti-vaxxer" misinformation have any impact on people who sincerely resist the idea of vaccinating children?
Nope. Facebook is fighting a losing battle. A lost battle, really.There’s a saying, long predating Facebook, that a lie can get around the world before the truth can get its boots on. The Internet has made that literally true. (Well, minus the metaphorical boots.)People like lies. People want to believe lies. Lies are way, way more fun than the truth. Some lies get you taken out of the gene pool pretty quickly, but there’s a huge category of lies that you can believe for a really long time without it having any immediate effect on you. In an evolutionary sense, those lies are the fittest, and they survive. And thrive.It’s kinda cute that Facebook think they matter here. They’re just one social medium, and apparently losing popularity in the process. It’s still the best place for old people to share conspiracy theories, but demographics are going to take care of that problem long before Facebook can implement anything that matters.It’s a fig leaf, to the tune of “we’re not just ignoring it, we’re doing something”. But it’s not going to make a difference. I mean, maybe a few people will be nudged one way or the other, but they’re trying to hold back the ocean with a broom.
What does it mean when I dream of my baby getting shot?
You don’t say if you actually have a baby in waking life. But there is a very real fear present. It always helps to do a reality check. Do you own a gun? If so, is it in a safe, secure place? You don’t seem to indicate if it was an accident, or where? Dreams speak in the language of metaphor, and tell stories with signs and symbols. Is your baby in any real danger, or is there perhaps a threat to its health and well-being? If you don’t have a waking baby you might have started an important new project or embarked on a new venture, or relationship. It could be vulnerable to “getting shot,” and the shock and violence of such imagery suggests that you pay attention. Something new and growing is at work in your life. Take care. It has captured your imagination, and needs protection. Dreams have multiple meanings. These are but a couple of interpretations. Your feelings should guide you.
If there is no evolution why are some people born without an appendix?
It is not from a disease. It is a body part that used to have a function for humans, but doesn't anymore. It is a vestigial structure. So it makes since that evolution would eventually remove it because it is not essential for survial anymore. Check out this website for more details. http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage12.html