Pemalite said:
o_O.Q 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."
fascinating... are you in favour of resources being taken from richer people and being handed down to poorer people?
|
Within reason. Money being taken from richer people isn't the same as giving up your OWN rights to your OWN body.
That is ultimately the crux of the issue at hand.
What if some random person on the street had a disease... And for them to survive you had to give up a chunk of your life so that they could live at your expense? You wouldn't have the right to say "no" either. You would be forced to do it.
EricHiggin said:
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)
|
The highest earners don't loose any incentive what so ever.
In nations with significant levels of welfare, what you describe generally doesn't occur either.
In-fact... Because there is more wealth redistribution, there is generally higher levels of spending overall across the entire populace which drives the wheels of an economy.
Remember... Someone who is a billionaire likely has a ton of money stashed in a bank somewhere, ultimately not being reinvested and thus not adding to the economy a great deal... Where-as a low-income earner will generally spend every penny they acquire...
Give a million low income earners an extra billion dollars and that billions dollars will be spent into the economy. - Give a rich person a billion dollars and it will sit in a bank somewhere.
Jicale said:
I wont have an opinion on abortion since I'm a male and females say I shouldn't but, I've seen a lot of article's and comments saying males shouldn't have a say because males can't have babies but the same groups say males can give birth when (trans-males) give birth and their real males. So males should have an opinion since males can give birth. We need some consistency. |
It takes two. The male should have a say. - But at the end of the day... Because the female is the vessel carrying the fetus, she should get the final say of what happens to her own body.
It's literally an argument about property (Aka. Body) rights.
Plenty of nations with significant financial safety nets though.
I mean here the only difference from a universal income and our current Basic Income is that it is means tested.
Yeah. I was corrected prior. Cheers.
zero129 said:
And the expense of the babys life? it isnt important?. Why should the mother have more rights then the child?.
|
Because the mother owns the body? Not the child?
Child is more than welcomed to survive via it's own accord after it's been aborted.
Unless you are suggesting people should give up their rights to their own body? Would you give up your right to your body if I needed say... Your kidneys to survive?
zero129 said:
If a woman goes and does the deed gets pregnant, yes she should have to carry that child to term unless the is some risk to her life. (And no im not talking about rape cases or forced pregnancy).
The woman had her choice and she made it in this case. Why should it be ok to take away the rights of a child because the mother has now changed her mind?.
|
Nope. Because what you are suggesting is that a person should give up their Freedoms to their own bodily autonomy.
Plus... Not all pregnancies are "intended". - Condoms break, anti-pregnancy pills falter.
A friend of mine had the "snip" after his 4th child. - Ironically, his body healed the procedure and he ended up with a 5th child. - They kept it of course, he has a good paying job being border control.
Plus... A pregnancy is 9 months, circumstances can change, you can loose a job and become homeless, you could be suffering from an illness... List goes on.
At the end of the day though... It comes down to property ownership of an individuals body... And the person who was born to that body (The mother) should have the first and last say of what happens to it.
zero129 said:
Abortion is killing. im all for choice and the woman has the choice to not get pregnant in the first place.
|
So I assume you are against the consumption of meat? Against the death Penalty?
At the end of the day, we are approaching 8~ billion people on this planet, a few abortions isn't really that much of a big deal.
Azelover said:
Separation of church and state is definitely an issue, so they shouldn't be quoting the Bible. However, you don't have to be Christian to agree that killing another human being is bad, and should be illegal. Some people think that abortion of particularly developed fetuses is murder. This doesn't need to be a religious issue necessarily. People can be pro-life and completely scientific at the same time. One thing isn't exclusive to the other. Pro-life doesn't necessarily mean you are religious at all.. |
Anyone who quotes anything from the Bible can generally have their view discarded in it's entirety until they can prove their assertions with empirical evidence that it is factual with it's claims.
Separation of Church and State would be something I would like for every nation across the globe to strive towards, religion is entirely unnecessary.
|
