Hypocrisy on Abortion?

[EricHiggin]

SpokenTruth said:

EricHiggin said:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot

1. How much exactly does a UBI offer? As far as I'm aware there is no defined amount.

Based on what Ontario, Canada is offering in it's trial, it's more than enough to be considered sustainable. I know this because my parents income, after taxes, falls somewhere in this gap. They are famers who own close to 200 acres of land and do custom farm work covering another 1200 acres approximately. Your average Ontario farmer doesn't cover anywhere close to that. Most farm their 50-300 acre farm and that's it. That income not only took care of my parents needs, but myself and my brothers needs, plus a few inexpensive wants here and there, the farm expenses, plus paying the farm off. We certainly weren't wealthy, but we weren't dirt poor either. Lower middle class. Just enough.

The Ontario UBI automatically dropped the payout to half if you had any earned income. So if you decided to work and be productive, you only got half.

2. Astronauts are only able to make choices, like choosing to become astronauts, because they weren't aborted when they were a fetus. If they had been, not only wouldn't they be astronauts, but they wouldn't exist. People can't become what they eventually grow to become, if they aren't given the opportunity to fulfill their potential.

1). That's a pilot program and so actual real world figures would probably differ.  For one thing, it would likely be tied to the local Cost of Living. 

The pilot program has the following values:

• $16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income
• $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income

That's $12,646 and $17,885 respectively in US dollars.  Neither are possible to live on in the US in any state.  Median 1 BR apartment in the US is $951 ($1,277 Canadian).

The purpose of UBI's are not to be a sustainable income to subsist from thus still necessitating an working income.

2). You literally keep making it worse.  Let's recap.  You said, "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?"  So you are saying preventing astronauts to travel in space (possibility for death) being equal to preventing a child from being born to prevent the possibility of not being cared for.  Now you are moving to, "Astronauts are only able to make choices, like choosing to become astronauts, because they weren't aborted when they were a fetus." That's a wholly different issue and unrelated to your original point. You don't even seem to remember what we were debating about. I mean your current line of thinking follows that one could theoretically abort the next Hitler and that's not a What If game anybody should be playing.

1. So I present you with a Canadian version of something that is not accepted as being defined worldwide, and your response is USA! USA! USA! ?

2. Well who brought up the point that led to that response?

SpokenTruth said: 

2). "I'm pretty sure an astronaut has a choice to be an astronaut. I don't think a fetus has a choice in the environment (financial, educational, emotional, medical, etc...support) they are born into."

If it was so unrelated, why did they use that as a response? Same reason they thought Hitler somehow ties into this? Hitler is becoming like Franks Red Hot for politics.