Hypocrisy on Abortion?

[EricHiggin]

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

Let's say there's a husband and wife, and he supports them financially, but over time she gets crazier and crazier, and more annoying as each day passes. He tries a bunch of things like getting her help and even lives separate from her at times, yet she still goes out of her way to make his life beyond miserable. Let's even say she got examined and somehow comes away without being diagnosed as a nut job because she's that sly. If the husband can't take it anymore because he feels like she isn't worth it and is a burden, but won't divorce her because he doesn't think she should be able to leech off of him financially anymore, and can't live his life because she's clearly willing to go out of her way to make his life miserable, so much so that he's been pondering suicide, if he one day snaps and literally beats her to death, should he get away with it? Should someone be forced to withhold physical rage towards another? If he's going to cause harm or even death to himself otherwise, which scenario is preferred?

So basically you are giving me a choice between an individual harming another or themselves.

The answer really depends on perspective, in the rescue services you are taught to put your own life first and not the life of others... Because if you are somehow impaired, who is going to rescue the other person?

But to answer your questions... No. He shouldn't get away with murder. Yes someone should be forced to withhold physical rage towards another.

But the difference is, the woman isn't surviving at the expense of another, making your entire argument entirely redundant.

One way or another someone dies. Either he snaps and kills her because she's a bit loony and drives him nuts, or he kills himself because he can't take it anymore and won't use other means to legitimately separate from her.

He's financially taking care of them both. Without his money, she requires another host. Whether it be another partner, a business, the state. On her own she is basically screwed, or ends up homeless, etc.

How is this much different than not wanting a fetus leeching off of you that cannot survive without you as it's host, or not wanting to have to go through giving birth and dealing with the aftermath even though other means are available?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

Is it his fault for getting into the situation in the first place or by not using another option to get out of it, as much as he doesn't want to? Is it ok because things weren't planned or expected to turn out that way, and it's his mind and body that were also at risk, and it's his body to decide what to do with?

If you are asking if I am okay with Euthanasia? Fuck oath I am.

I'm comparing abortion to this hypothetical voluntary manslaughter case.

I'm asking is it a woman's fault for getting into the situation in the first place and becoming pregnant (non forced), as much as she doesn't want to be? Is it ok to terminate the fetus because this wasn't planned or expected to turn out this way, even though other options exist? Since her mind and body are also at risk, and it's her body to decide what to do with, should she be allowed to kill another to save herself from harm?

If it's ok because the fetus doesn't know or feel what's happening, then if the loony woman is knocked unconscious before she dies, does that change things and make it ok since she won't feel or know that her existence was ended?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

What's the point in working harder or smarter if you're being given enough free money? Where's the incentive to do more? Because you could one day make it to the top? Where is the top? Was it gasoline transportation, single core 1GHz CPU's, PS2, Blackberry's? Why create newer better stuff if there's little incentive to do so, other than life or death scenario's like war or pandemic's?

The fallacy here is that you don't recognize that wealth is all relative.

Someone who has nothing will see someone with a bicycle and think they have wealth.
A person with a bicycle will see someone with a car and think they have wealth.
A person with a car will see someone with a motorhome and think they are wealthy.
A person with a motorhome will see someone with a private jet and think they are wealthy.

There is always more to strive for. - Just because I earn 6 figures doesn't mean I wouldn't want more wealth.

A person with a bike thinks someone with a car has wealth, and that a multi billionaire has way too much. The problem with this, is that a person with a billion dollars will see the multi billionaire and think they have wealth, but won't think they have too much. So who's more correct? The person who was able to do whatever it took to make a billion dollars, or the person who owns a bike?

There is always more to strive for, and that is also a problem with socialism. First it's taking some of the billionaires money, then, after everyone has more, they decide to take a lot of the billionaires money, and once that becomes the norm, it's trying to take enough to make everyone financially equal. Which is why the system fails because when there's no more reason to make any more money since more and more is taken from you, and there's no more rich people to take money from, everything collapses. You can't tell a person who deals with mind boggling management headaches or physical pain through hard labor that they have to or should keep doing it just because it's the right thing to do. They will always eventually go elsewhere where they can get more or give up because why deal with that crap when you can just sit in a car and drive people around or sit at a desk and push paper for the same financial outcome.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

How much billionaires have stashed vs how much is locked up in some multi year fund or stock probably isn't as much as many would think in comparison. You don't get billionaire rich by not wisely investing a bunch of that money. You also don't stay that rich if you give it away. The world is so connected today that if you run a multi billion dollar business, having billions to keep things going if something happens isn't a dumb idea. Just look at the stir over the tariff war. That's just one possibility of the many that could hurt your business, that you basically have no control over. What you do have control over, is how much you decided to put away for a rainy day, or year. Most billionaires did whatever had to be done to make that money, and many people benefited off of that in some manner in terms of goods or services rendered.

The rich have an amazing savings rate. More than you think. - They aren't rich because they are spending money you know.
https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-by-income-wealth-class/

That is cash not being reinvested... And thus my point still stands that poorer income brackets tend to spend more than the rich and thus contribute more to the economy overall.

The highest class saves 38% today, and 20 years ago they were saving around 22%, but were saving around 39% in the 1980's. Why were they saving more then and less up until now? Did they save less and spend or invest a bunch of it?

In the 1920's the highest class savings dropped from 39% to 31%, which was during the Roaring 20's. That leads to the Great Depression in the 1930's where the highest class is able to save the least out of all classes at -8%, in which it takes them around 7 years to get back to 31% savings again.

They also say in the article that they think you should be saving 20%, in which the middle and lower class saved less than that much of the last 100 years.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

One of the main reasons socialism doesn't work is because many of the bright people and hard workers stop doing so because there is little incentive. If everyone is treated as much the same and equally as possible, that's exactly what you end up with. The bright idea's disappear and less and less work get's completed. Why come up with a great idea if you might not be able to make it happen because you can't get enough money to do it? Even if you find a way to, why do it for a pat on the back? Why work your butt off if it's not going to really help you or the company get ahead much if at all? Once the loopholes are sealed and taxes are jacked up the businesses will slowly crumble or they will flat out leave.

Many european and oceanic nations implement various "socialist" practices in with their capitalist markets to great success actually.
Case in point... Norway, New Zealand and Australia.

There are businesses who target those lower social-economic demographics and become rather successful too.
For example: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-20/radio-rentals-reaps-$90-million-in-centrelink-payments/6333690

How many of those countries went full blown socialist? How many have been even partially socialist for a long time if not their entire existence? How many were capitalist before? How much stronger do countries become the more socialism you implement?

If war ever comes to Norway, NZ, or Aus, how well is socialism going to help protect them? How is America easily able to protect itself, as well as much of the rest of the world?