So taking many resources from elsewhere and giving as much money, power, and influence to the military as necessary during war is typical of socialist views? That doesn't sound very equal to me. Sounds a lot more like capitalism. Incentive leading to the money, power, and influence going to what's seen as the most necessary, the military, at the time. Quite unfair and unequal if you ask me.

Based on the past European entangled wars, how well would the Europeans have fared if capitalist America stayed out of it? Would it still be Europe today? There is a fear of guns in Europe and that fear has now spread to knives so much so the Gov's are now getting involved. How well will these people handle it when there's fighter jets overhead, bullets whizzing by and tanks at their front door? If you can't handle how the GoT series is ending...

While Europe would obviously try to ramp up to fight off an invading force, how well would it do against someone like America today if they were hell bent on taking some, if not all of it over? Europe would have to toss it's socialist ideal's out the window to properly compete and hold or regain ground, where as America simply turns up the capitalist dial.

America certainly doesn't like to get into needless wars, but if the war is seen as legit I'd pray to God you're not the target or on their sh*t list. The entire country may not have been fully convinced and all in on Afghanistan or more so Iraq, but the military themselves still mowed through regardless. If you're by chance dumb enough to attack their homeland, well we know what happens to the instigating offensive attacking country.

No. It isn't. Because we don't have an understanding of the underlying circumstances.
Condom could have broken, anti-pregnancy pills could have failed... And some men who have the "snip" can have their body heal the procedure and a child later resulted.
It's a complex issue.

What he feels is ultimately irrelevant. If he initiates the divorce, then so be it.

You are conflating two separate issues which is a logical fallacy. You need to bring the issue back to basics.

And that is... What you are trying to assert is that an unborn fetus which is incapable of making a comprehensive Adult decision should be entitled to owning another Adult persons body.

Well no. She would still survive if her husband walked away and left her destitute.
She is capable of going out bush and living off the land using her own willpower without the help of any other individual.

He should be held accountable. It's murder.
The laws do matter.

And some laws are wrong, I still do follow them, but will campaign to get them changed or use my own voting power. - There is a right and wrong way to go about things.

You are turning this argument into a circus, your position is so far left field of the actual issue it's turning comical.

Because the male doesn't own the rights to another persons body. The mothers.
If the mother is unable to make an Adult decision, then of course that decision would fall to the next of kin, which would be the partner or immediate family member. In-fact that does happen.

Who is to say the mother isn't hit by a truck the moment she walks out of the hospital with the baby? You are talking in a slippery slope hypothetical, which is a logical fallacy. I highly suggest you get back to basics of the issue at hand rather than over-complicating the entire thing with your thought experiment shenanigans.

I work in the emergency services. You would be surprised how many people have survived a catastrophic accident and wish for other avenues to be available... Which is why I am a supporter of Euthanasia.

The amount of resources to take full control of Australia is a logistical nightmare.
Could the USA do it? Sure. But how much money and resources are you going to throw at it? Just think of the Trillions spent in the Middle East, that would be a drop in the bucket to invade and control an entire inhospitable continent... We are a highly advanced nation remember.

Sure you could concentrate on regions where the population is concentrated.. But I don't think you understand how much land area that still covers.... It's a vast land.

Then you would need to contend with areas that aren't under direct control, guerilla warfare and so on will become prevalent... For example... There is only a single highway linking the East and Western sides of Australia, we take that out and suddenly you are at a disadvantage.

And as a people, we have grown up in these inhospitable environments, we know how to survive, that's also big advantage for the long term.

Is it though? As a nation... From a world perspective, it's growth isn't really that impressive verses the likes of China or India.
Heck, the bulk of our trade is no longer with the USA anymore, it's with China... Not to mention China's influence is growing all around the world in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Asia and so on... Which in turn is almost displacing the USA in those areas.

Trump really doesn't have a choice.
If anything, Trump has certainly been a great piece of entertainment, but he hasn't made the USA any more or less impressive, just more of the same.

Nothing lasts forever, one day the USA isn't going to be on top, no empire in history has ever remained on top indefinitely... And all the growth projections points to China beating the USA in the majority of metrics in the coming years.

Going to be interesting to see how the worlds dynamics shifts... Even the USA's trade embargoes with nations is becoming ineffective as China is now trading with their own Petrodollar.

Canada is happy to do it's own thing. But it is nice that we can agree that Socialism can enhance capitalism when done right.

Also, didn't Canada beat the USA in a war once?

The USA's military might has also gotten expensive and inefficient.
China is undergoing/underwent it's industrial revolution, so it's now a manufacturing powerhouse, plus it's technology prowess is ramping up extremely quickly.

Plus... Wages are extremely low in China, so the Chinese can get more bang for their buck.

And Australia is super friendly with China. They buy our shit... We buy theirs.

From an alliance/military perspective though, I think we will always pick the side of the USA... Along with New Zealand, UK, Canada, India and the bulk of Europe... Mostly because of cultural and historical connections that group us all together.

But as a middle power we have been bringing the regional powers here together for decades and working with them just fine, China included.

Trump won the election and he will stay in for another term, Republicans are making abortion harder in a number of states in the USA. The LEFT are upset that they have to put up with the new law reforms for a very long time unless they get enough votes and change the laws again. There is an alternative, embrace Trump America. If you can not fight it, just go with the flow.

What we're talking about isn't a baby. It's a bunch of cells that don't even have a heart beat let alone a heart. I'm pretty sure it's not murder if you kill something that isn't even alive.

Least they aren't going after women for miscarriages. I wouldn't put it past some deep south republican state legislatures. The old white men have trouble with science.

It is alive, and depending on the place you look abortion is permitted even after there is a heartbeat

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

This have that until 24 weeks it is open to the mother to abort, after it then you have risk to the mother or preganancy not viable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

A fetus when reaching 24 weeks already have a 40-70% chance of living if given birth instead of killed.

A baby also can't survive via it's own power (it will die rather quickly without somebody taking care of it)...so I don't think that should have anything at all to do with the argument.

It is also a fine line saying the mother can do whatever she wants to her body. So if a mother decides to continue drinking absurd amounts of alcohol, and the baby comes out extremely messed up, you have no issue with this right? After all, it was her body and she had the right to drink like that. The fact that the child will now have a crappy life with many issues due to this isn't the mother's problem.

It is permitted only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or there's something seriously wrong with the fetus. In which case when you abort you are not losing a life, you're saving one.

But we're not talking about 24 weeks here, we're talking about less than 10, at which point there is nothing alive that even resembles a human.

A solution for this would be mandatory screenings and subsequent abortions for seriously damaged fetuses. I doubt a mother who doesn't take care of herself would want a disabled kid anyway.

So now you are going to force the abortion of damaged fetuses? You are once again dictating what the mother has to do with her body...which seems to be people's entire problem with not allowing abortion in the first place.

I'm putting a scenario out there where the mother absolutely decides she still wants the baby. So nobody can tell her she can't have it, and nobody can tell her she can't drink during pregnancy cause that is her choice. Baby is born disabled, that absolutely just became the mother's fault for directly causing a person to have to live their whole life with a disability.