1.  I think it's an human in its early stages of development.  I don't see how it's relevant to the conversation, but there's my view of it.

So now, do you believe a fetus is a parasite, or do you believe it's possible for one to support abortion without holding that view?  Cause that's directly related to the conversation since your whole contention of hypocrisy relies on people who support UBI viewing fetuses as a parasite.

2.  Go back to my very first post.  I mention literal vs figurative right there.  I've kept talking about it, because you've continuously made baffling claims to support your contention that the articles are not talking about a fetus as a literal parasite.  

To get back on topic, reread the article you excerpted.  

"In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host. I'm not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this would include most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent[13] - if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated. "

 If you read this passage as anything but literal, then you suck at reading.  If you want to pull out two words from the paragraph and claim that means it's all metaphor, then you suck at reading and logic.  You may disagree with it, but it is beyond question that the author regards the fetus as a parasite.  

To go back to my original claim, the articles above are talking about how you should deal with a literal parasite (in their view).  The arguments below are about how to deal with a metaphorical (in your view) parasite. It is not at all hypocritical to have different views on how to treat them.  

3.  Yes, even if the taxes are so high they don't have the money to do things with they want with their body.  You still have the right to get the implants.  There is no legal impediment to doing so.  If you are able to earn the money, you'll be allowed to do so.  If you do it, neither you nor the doctor will be punished. Making it indirectly more difficult for someone to do something is not the same as directly banning something, or enforcing harsh penalties on it.  

That may be a good reason not to support UBI, but it is not the same thing as banning a particular action.  

Currency is typically pegged against a commodity at a fundamental level.
Hence the Petrodollar.

Taxation is not a construct that biologically restricts any individual to strive towards something.

At least you have the right outlook though, that you respect other peoples rights to choose... Even if your other points of reasoning is a little dubious.

Here children are generally cared for by the state rather than any religious institution.
I would assume the same exists in most other nations... That the children are "owned" by the state, but various religious organizations have a directive to take care of the child with probable financial incentives depending on geographical location and resources.

Religion is a business at the end of the day, a business with low profit margins of course.

Any abuse is to much abuse.


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

For the whole thread:
Can we please refrain from turning this discussion into another one about Nazi's? Cheers.

LOL you didn't proof squat, as a matter of fact numerous people including myself provided numerous articles that proofed that the Nazi's wheren't socialist.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

The difference here is that... Those two actually entered into a social contract, that is what a marriage is.

However... There is also the option of divorce and both going their separate ways and potentially living happily ever after not at the expense of the other individual.

The fact is, your example cannot really be adhered to the abortion dilemma because they are fundamentally different... A fetus biologically requires the body of another to survive... Your example does not, it's just a thought experiment.

The difference is... In this manslaughter case there are two adults, they don't require biological ties to survive, but rather financial and social ones... And neither individual has the rights to dictate the terms of the body of the other individual.
The fact that laws may be broken that may result in death is entirely redundant, that's just a side effect of the ordeal.

At the end of the day... Even if the fetus could feel, could understand what is happening... Is moot. They don't have full autonomous control over the mothers body and thus don't get the right to dictate the terms.

Now if a woman is unconscious, she is unable to provide consent, thus the decision will fall towards next of kin, which would likely be the partner or family member.
There has been instances where a woman has been rendered "dead" but clinically kept alive for the sake of an unborn child as the partner provided consent on her behalf.

War is always happening. Australia cannot ever be invaded because of how vast the continent is... And how inhospitable the geography/environment is, it would be a logistical nightmare.

America can protect itself thanks to it's strong economic might... And strong alliances.
However... Russia during the cold war was able to achieve the same despite it's very strong socialist underpinnings before it's collapse.

China is leveraging both socialist ideas and capitalism and will likely overthrow the USA fairly soon as the largest power on Earth.

Socialism isn't actually a bad thing, it's a group of fundamental ideas... And can actually work really well for any modern capitalistic democracy... We don't have some of the highest standards of living in Australia for nothing you know.

I should've made clear that I'm not talking directly to OP with my statement. Then again he blindly supports people who do make bad decisions based on religious feelings, which is just as bad if not worse.

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

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.

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 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. 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?

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?

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? 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

Ultra conservative religious Republican imposing new laws is good for Americans. Republican supporters want to see Democrat social reforms over turned in favour of good old Republican God fearing laws. Ultra conservatism is gaining more popularity and the politicians have been elected to make things happen. Taxation is a form of theft and that lowering taxes is the best way to boost economy and create prosperity for all Americans. A government can not tax its way towards economic prosperity. Taxes should be small and help pay towards military, police, defense, justice and law and order. Everything else can be provided by private enterprise or charity. Universal basic Income (UBI) is a bad idea and must be opposed in America because it is a wealth distribution and it is Socialism. Americans are rugged individuals and they are Capitalists and they usually oppose polices that promote Socialism.

Did you not see what happened in the last election?  Just wait till the next one.  You'll probably be dumbfounded when they take back the Senate and Presidency.  Just because Republican state legislatures like to cheat and gerrymandering the shit out of their districts (Democrats are guilty of this too but Republicans went full crazy on it in the past decade). Just look at all the state courts now throwing away all the bullshit maps.  Only reason why Senate didn't get taken back last election was because they were mainly safe races for Republicans.  Wait less than 2 more years and you can see your puritan dream be squashed.

How's those budget deficits going since giving mainly rich those tax cuts? Oh wait the tea party will come out bitching once democrats take over.  You live in the U.K. so I doubt you really know what is going on here.

double post