Please please PLEASE: this question is made from a place of pure curiosity, with no political biases intended. I’m asking because restrictions and prohibitions puts a pressure on the market since the demand never ceases, and someone interested in supply for that demand will do it for massive profits - no matter what. Wouldn’t it be the case for any product, be it drugs, alcohol or guns?

  • actionjbone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    The difference is scope; e.g., the ease of murdering people.

    If you drop a container of oxytocin in your house, you won’t accidentally murder a child who lives next door.

    If you drop a gun, there’s a chance you might.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      The difference is scope

      Very true. If someone has a scope on their gun, they are serious about murder.

    • scops@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      The majority of modern firearms are drop proof. I think a more realistic example would be a negligent discharge because the owner failed to empty the gun before cleaning it. (Both are negligence, you’re just not likely to have a dropped gun fire if it was made in the last 120 years or so)

    • Photonic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      Well if you accidentally drop it into your neighbours tea who’s pregnant with a fetus that’s too young to be viable, you actually will kill the child next door.

      That’s because oxytocin is a peptide hormone that has effects on social bonding, love and childbirth.

      And in its synthetic form it’s used to start contractions and induce labour.

      So, long story short, I think you meant OxyContin ;)

        • Photonic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          A fetus before 24 weeks is not a lump of cells.

          A lump of cells would be called an embryo.

          Edit: also, it was a joke about mixing up oxytocin and oxycontin. Calm the fuck down people.

        • unitedwithme@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          If a lump of cells, moving, splitting, growing, etc, were found on Mars, you better believe it’d be “life on another planet”!

          Just because it’s not an apples to apples “life” comparison doesn’t mean it’s not a life. Just like people who argue “I dIdN’t cOnsENt to bEiNg BoRn” BS argument; well, those fetuses also didn’t consent to being aborted.

          • actionjbone@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            However, nobody would claim a lump of cells on Mars was a human child.

            They didn’t say it wasn’t life.

            Don’t move the goalposts.

            • unitedwithme@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 days ago

              Not exactly, Sherlock. I’m not sayng one living cell, nor “all cells matter”. But a “lump of cells” that are forming a human being is categorically different than a virus or bacterium that are alien and hostile to your natural body.

              I’m also not saying abortion is 100 right or wrong. It’s not that black and white. There are a multitude of reasons it’s justifiable. But I don’t support just willy nilly getting an abortion bc someone made a mistake or 3 in life.