Hypocrisy on Abortion?

[o_O.Q]

SpokenTruth said:

o_O.Q said:

"Your parallels have one major failure point.  A UBI enables the lowest income earners in society to become contributing members of said society"

1). that's not true

for many people if their basic needs are provided for they won't feel the need to provide value to society, since they'll be provided for regardless

what are you basing your argument on exactly?

"An unplanned child cannot be a contributing member of society for nearly 2 decades. "

and they may never become one, that's true... which isn't any different from ubi anyway

2). i'm just amused at the hypocrisy inherent in saying we need to be compassionate and take care of the downtrodden by taking from those that have more, but when it comes to kids, the argument is fuck those kids because they will be taking resources from the mothers who have more

3). and democrats can stand there and say this shit and not see that its inconsistent and even outright toxic since it could be argued that poor people occasionally make bad choices that result in their situation but the same can never be said of the unborn

1). You must not be familiar with a UBI.  It's not intended to be a livable income.  You still need a job. 

2). By 'kids' do you mean zygotes and embryos? That said, isn't it more humane to reduce the chance the child will be born into a situation where it cannot be properly cared for?  What's worse?  Aborting an embryo or forcing the mother and child to suffer?

3). How is trying to ensure the well being of both the mother and child inconsistent?  Further, we don't condone later term abortions unless medically necessary. Viability factors into the issue.

"You must not be familiar with a UBI.  It's not intended to be a livable income.  You still need a job."

even though its been brought up in the context of people losing their jobs to automation?

"That said, isn't it more humane to reduce the chance the child will be born into a situation where it cannot be properly cared for?"

are you in favour of killing some poor people since they cannot be properly cared for? well no in that case you demand that other people(generally men) take their resources and give those resources to the poor people

but when it comes to kids you don't demand that resources be allocated for them in the same way, why is that?

you would argue i suppose that it restricts the mothers bodily autonomy, without realising of course that when resources are reallocated for poor people that's also infringing on the bodily autonomy of those people who resources are being taken from

"How is trying to ensure the well being of both the mother and child inconsistent? "

you are trying to ensure the well being of the child by crushing its skull and then sucking its body parts out of the womb through a tube? how thoughtful of you