"You must not be familiar with a UBI. It's not intended to be a livable income. You still need a job."
1). 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?"
2). 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? "
3). 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
1). Irrelevant how or why they are no longer working. A UBI is not a living income.
2). I'm going to need you to respond to my previous question about how you define a 'kid' before I can adequately answer you here. However, I want social services for the fetus but until we get that, women should have the right to terminate.
3). You just described Intrauterine Cranial Decompression which a 3rd trimester abortion technique and not legal in the US without a serious medical emergency. This is why pro-choice hate debating with pro-lifers...they latter rarely understand what they are protesting against.
No financial penalties, no 18 years in baby jail.
Really? For some states, convictions can be a sentence of up to five years in prison, a fine up to $125,000 or both. So again, where are you getting your lies from?
Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."