Hypocrisy on Abortion?

[EricHiggin]

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.

1. Well then with this the mother and child will be fine then correct? Isn't that part of the reason of UBI? So that people who are in terrible situations have something to give them the basics and keep them going? No reasons for an abortion now correct? (I'm not including forced pregnancy in this btw)

2. I agree. We need to stop all space travel this instant because isn't it more humane to reduce the chance an astronaut will end up in a situation where they cannot be properly provided with heat or oxygen? Why not? Because they have been allowed to live long enough to be able to make that decision for themselves?

3. UBI basically cancels out the need for the majority of abortions, and vice versa. One or the other. Neither makes much sense as far as I'm concerned.

Pemalite said:
The mother owns the body in question, not the fetus. Thus the mother should have the first and last say of what occurs in her body... Otherwise we are giving the rights of the host body to another human being.

If the fetus can survive via it's own power, then let it, but it shouldn't be allowed to at the expense of another person.

************

As for the Universal Basic Income... Why isn't that a thing in the USA? It works in most other developed nations with great success?

People should own the money they make, not anyone else, aside from the basic Gov taxes. Thus each individual should have the first and last say of what happens to their money, otherwise we are giving the highest earners much less incentive to keep doing whatever it is that is making them truckloads of money. Money that is needed to be able to give to everyone, to do whatever they want...

If people can survive via their own power, then let them, but it shouldn't be allowed at the expense of other people. Just because UBI is a 'digital abortion' for the highest earners, doesn't change the fact that someone is having something taken away from them. (Aside from those who choose to share their wealth)