Hypocrisy on Abortion?

[Pemalite]

EricHiggin said:

So two coming together to create another is not a contract and shouldn't be?

No. It isn't. Because we don't have an understanding of the underlying circumstances.
Condom could have broken, anti-pregnancy pills could have failed... And some men who have the "snip" can have their body heal the procedure and a child later resulted.
It's a complex issue.

EricHiggin said:

I explained he doesn't want to because he feels she is leeching off him financially and doesn't want to give her a penny more through divorce. Based on how I've described her she's not the type of woman to just up and leave with nothing. Much like the option to put the baby up for adoption after birth which some want nothing to do with.

What he feels is ultimately irrelevant. If he initiates the divorce, then so be it.

EricHiggin said:

How does the fetus live inside the host and how does the host survive and provide for that fetus? Nutrients? Which come from food? Which is purchased with money? Which is made by working? Etc.

You are conflating two separate issues which is a logical fallacy. You need to bring the issue back to basics.

And that is... What you are trying to assert is that an unborn fetus which is incapable of making a comprehensive Adult decision should be entitled to owning another Adult persons body.

EricHiggin said:

You don't become an adult if you aren't given the chance to live that long. She requires a host to survive. Right now that host is her husband. If not him, she needs another person, or a job from a business that someone else runs, or hand outs from the state run by people. All biological hosts, mind you not as direct as a fetus.

Well no. She would still survive if her husband walked away and left her destitute.
She is capable of going out bush and living off the land using her own willpower without the help of any other individual.

EricHiggin said:

If she can't dictate what he does with his body then since he used it to beat her to death he shouldn't be held accountable? So do the laws themselves matter? If abortion were made illegal and people started breaking the rules you would agree they were wrong or would it be the law that's wrong? If some laws are wrong, why bother following any of them if you don't agree with them?

He should be held accountable. It's murder.
The laws do matter.

And some laws are wrong, I still do follow them, but will campaign to get them changed or use my own voting power. - There is a right and wrong way to go about things.

EricHiggin said:

So since the wife can't control the husband, it's ok for him to beat her to death, since she's the reason he felt the need to do it?

You are turning this argument into a circus, your position is so far left field of the actual issue it's turning comical.

EricHiggin said:

Err on the side of caution then correct? That's what it boils down to? Why not give the male (if he's around) an equal right to choose and potentially give the fetus a chance to live because maybe things will be ok?

Because the male doesn't own the rights to another persons body. The mothers.
If the mother is unable to make an Adult decision, then of course that decision would fall to the next of kin, which would be the partner or immediate family member. In-fact that does happen.

EricHiggin said:

 If the mother isn't likely to die from the fetus or wasn't raped, assume life is better than death, even if it's a 'crappy life'? Who's to say the poor mother doesn't win the lottery the week after the baby is terminated or was to be born? What if the baby get's adopted and grows up being the key reason cancer get's cured, through it's own intelligence, the foster parenting or both?

Who is to say the mother isn't hit by a truck the moment she walks out of the hospital with the baby? You are talking in a slippery slope hypothetical, which is a logical fallacy. I highly suggest you get back to basics of the issue at hand rather than over-complicating the entire thing with your thought experiment shenanigans.

EricHiggin said:

How many people in 'horrible' situations who are alive today would agree that being dead would be better? There's plenty of people who think illegally crossing borders is better than death, and many who seem to think forcing them to go back and try to get in legally will possibly lead to their death's, which they say would be a terrible thing.

I work in the emergency services. You would be surprised how many people have survived a catastrophic accident and wish for other avenues to be available... Which is why I am a supporter of Euthanasia.

EricHiggin said:

America and her full might couldn't take down Australia? I'd hope she never decides to try, because I wouldn't bet against her. No offence, she'd take down Canada too, winter or not. Like you said, much of Aus is inhospitable, so all they would need to do is focus on the most hospitable regions, and the Aus military and people would be screwed, since if forced to fall back from those area's, they wouldn't be able to remain in the inhospitable environments long themselves.

The amount of resources to take full control of Australia is a logistical nightmare.
Could the USA do it? Sure. But how much money and resources are you going to throw at it? Just think of the Trillions spent in the Middle East, that would be a drop in the bucket to invade and control an entire inhospitable continent... We are a highly advanced nation remember.

Sure you could concentrate on regions where the population is concentrated.. But I don't think you understand how much land area that still covers.... It's a vast land.

Then you would need to contend with areas that aren't under direct control, guerilla warfare and so on will become prevalent... For example... There is only a single highway linking the East and Western sides of Australia, we take that out and suddenly you are at a disadvantage.

And as a people, we have grown up in these inhospitable environments, we know how to survive, that's also big advantage for the long term.

EricHiggin said:

Yet America is still here, is stronger, and is looking to get even mightier in the coming years and beyond.

Is it though? As a nation... From a world perspective, it's growth isn't really that impressive verses the likes of China or India.
Heck, the bulk of our trade is no longer with the USA anymore, it's with China... Not to mention China's influence is growing all around the world in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Asia and so on... Which in turn is almost displacing the USA in those areas.

EricHiggin said:

If Trump doesn't get his way China will likely overthrow the USA eventually, but it will no doubt be messy. America isn't going to just watch itself fade into second place. It's not their style. If Trump gets his way, China will continue to grow, but America is going to boom again.

Trump really doesn't have a choice.
If anything, Trump has certainly been a great piece of entertainment, but he hasn't made the USA any more or less impressive, just more of the same.

Nothing lasts forever, one day the USA isn't going to be on top, no empire in history has ever remained on top indefinitely... And all the growth projections points to China beating the USA in the majority of metrics in the coming years.

Going to be interesting to see how the worlds dynamics shifts... Even the USA's trade embargoes with nations is becoming ineffective as China is now trading with their own Petrodollar.

EricHiggin said:

Socialism in small doses can enhance capitalism, but too much isn't great and go too far and it tends to lead to a tipping point. If socialism made things so much better you would think a place like Canada would at least gain some attention and respect from a country like the USA, but they couldn't care less for the most part overall. America could stomp us out without much hassle if they really wanted to, and not just from a war perspective. Does that make our more socialized system better than their's?

Canada is happy to do it's own thing. But it is nice that we can agree that Socialism can enhance capitalism when done right.

Also, didn't Canada beat the USA in a war once?

EricHiggin said:

A big part of why America's military might is what it is, is because of the push for more and better, due to the incentives, and the freedom that power gives it's people. Push too much socialism in America and she'll eventually end up having a military like Canada, and they better hope another world power doesn't take over and that it's not hostile. How friendly is Aus with China?

The USA's military might has also gotten expensive and inefficient.
China is undergoing/underwent it's industrial revolution, so it's now a manufacturing powerhouse, plus it's technology prowess is ramping up extremely quickly.

Plus... Wages are extremely low in China, so the Chinese can get more bang for their buck.

And Australia is super friendly with China. They buy our shit... We buy theirs.

From an alliance/military perspective though, I think we will always pick the side of the USA... Along with New Zealand, UK, Canada, India and the bulk of Europe... Mostly because of cultural and historical connections that group us all together.

But as a middle power we have been bringing the regional powers here together for decades and working with them just fine, China included.