Sounds like a contract would take care of that problem.

In terms of killing something they are. Everyone in their own way lives and deals with plenty of mental dilemma's and the negative consequences, and that's been the norm since humans have existed.

Gotta love it when someone breaks out the saucepan... loosen the belt because supper will be caught and cooked before the sands end time.

People's feelings when it comes to marriage, divorce or even life and death, are irrelevant?

I don't disagree that the older you get the wiser you typically become in general. I'm arguing that if your decision making process involves others, it would be wise to seriously take into account the decision making process of people older and likely wiser than yourself, especially in terms of life and death. Corporations typically have multiple board members, and some many members, to make decisions that impact their employee's job, as well as the public and however they interact with them. To argue a life should come down to just one persons decision without more defined requirements doesn't seem like an 'adult' decision to begin with. It's a reason why a jury exists in certain types of court cases.

We do, JT. Some say or imply America's DJT is as well...

No? Where did we come from? Scientifically and/or Religiously. Even then, God used clay to mold us so.

Some people don't give a sh*t about anything either, but tossing partially made products in the garbage will get you fired unless you have a damn good reason why you did so. If you run your own solo business like that, it will leave you bankrupt and living on the street, or wilderness, questioning and fighting for your life.

Well understanding the scenario is important when analyzing it and drawing conclusions.

If you deem a certain law, or point within a law to be unjust, is there ever a point in time where that law becomes just, even after multiple failed attempts to challenge it? The point of the law being to redress wrongs, also taking into account nothing or no one is perfect of course.

Neither does the husband.

You're free to care less about whether or not the tree makes a sound.

While I'm not big on restrictions, some are certainly necessary in a proper functioning society, so partially restricting procreation makes more sense than stopping it's fulfillment once started. They should have responsibly tackled the problem much sooner and never had to deal with implementing the law in the first place.

The reason being because life is extremely important? The most important some would say?

The worst thing she ever described to me, which I can't forget because it had to do with my career as well, was attending to an electrical shock and burn victim at a factory substation. Had a few fingers and a toe blown off and was burned up about as bad as it get's. She said you could clearly see the path that was taken through the body, from left finger tips diagonally to right toes. He died as they were pulling into emerg. Just thinking about it makes my skin crawl. My job was never the same after hearing that.

Again I look to responsibility. I became much more safety conscious than I already was, but would not expect the system to allow me to end my own life, and if it came down to being unconscious and having someone else choose for me, it won't be just one person who decides, and it certainly includes people I find logical and not just people who care about me.

Maybe wait at least 20 years before giving them a reason to do so then, if ever.

The world is catching up because of the peace America has helped to keep worldwide (minus their mistakes here and there). This is where America gives Canada a pat on the back when no one is looking. It also has led to worldwide communication done in an easy and rapid fashion, solving problems before they get out of hand.

The same could be said about life, or human life more specifically. China isn't guaranteed or immune either.

Not near enough of an advantage if you can't also outperform the competition when it comes to quality and technological advances. It's a solid base though.

When countries continue to prosper over time, the birth rate eventually declines and they tend to automate. How many people way back in America thought there would always be plenty of slaves? Good thing that got solved and it's being implemented worldwide, slowly but surely.

1. It wouldn't work in America you said. I told you it would work here. Are you saying if it would work then it's not UBI? Then what's the point of UBI?

I'm all ears for hearing about what UBI is exactly. A gravity like description would suffice since it's universal.

2. Who's getting it seems to be up for debate. You're free to think up is down. I mean, when it comes to the big picture of space, well.

Democrats are all about giving out more government hand outs and popular social reforms. This however comes at a cost, tax payers pay higher taxes and they must foot the bill. Republicans say hell no, let's lower taxes and make it harder to get abortions, reduce public spending and oppose socialist policies like Obamacare and Universal Basic Income. Republicans believe reducing taxes will help everyone achieve economic freedom and become rugged individuals, self reliant and independent like a hero portrayed by actors: Clint Eastwood, John Wayne or Gary Cooper.

I guess what im trying to say is that the majority of the rest of the world (looking at your first article), allows for abortion under special circumstance (the number of countries that are grey for "on request" are quite low, and yes these are mostly Western/European countries).

But even those highly liberal countries do require special circumstances.

South Africa is one of those countries marked as on request, but even in South Africa there are limitations in terms of time, which these Article do not cover.

Sweden is another i randomly chose from the list, that is also marked as "On request" but even in Sweden it is only allowed up until 18 weeks, after which a special reason is required (special reasons usually refers to sickness, rape, incest, danger to the mother).

I don't see any country treating abortion lightly, referring to a fetus as a parasite (which is rediculous) or completely disallowing abortion even under the majority of special circumstances. Where it seems like the USA is pushing in those two extreme opposites. However it might be a case that only the extremist views of the USA is the ones we hear about...

(we being the international community :) )

Abortion is Murder. Abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn child. Only if the child has a genetic defect like Down Syndrome or some other defect only then Abortion should be considered, To terminate a healthy unborn child is madness. Being an ultra conservative and devout Catholic, me and my fellow Pro-lifers believe that Abortion is murder.

So for people who aren't devout Catholics abortion is OK.

Abortion is never ok it is murder. There are plenty of religious people that end up as politicians and they are social conservative and religion plays a huge role in deciding political issues as seen in may conservative nations around the world. The Catholic Church and most religious organisations are against Abortion.

You are attacking religious freedom, if you force a decision based on your faith on people following a different faith. That is highly unamerican. You are an enemy of american values, that are grounded in religious freedom. It is OK for you to base your decisions on your faith, but never apply this to followers of different faiths.

Abortion is a sin. Having more children is good because there are going to be winners and losers in life. Animals have more babies for a reason, not all of them are going to be successful in life or strong enough to survive. The same applies to humans, only the strongest survive. The strongest men rise to the top and they smash the male competitors into the ground so they can pass on their gene code. Abortion is not right and why would a strong man sit idly by allow that to happen? God does not want unborn children to be killed before they had a chance, God enjoys watching the strong man fighting his way to the top in an endless cycle that has gone on since the dawn of time.

If you say it is a sin, you mean it is a sin for you. As I said religious freedom means other religions can have differing opinions. To deny that is contradictory to american values.

But you should stick to faith-based arguments, because your interpretation of science is even worse. What you argue is called by biologists r-strategy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

R-strategy basically means to produce as much offspring as possible and a few survive. But in evolution also a different strategy showed itself as very successful: K-strategy. This is the other way, produce few offspring but devote them a lot of resources so they have better chances of survival. Humans are K-strategists like a lot of bigger and more complicated animals (the costs and the losses of the r-strategy are increasing with the complexity of organisms). So the r-strategy you recommend is more suited to simpler organisms without a brain.

At the end you try to glue science and religion together. That is not very pretty. And again you attack american values by completely forcing only one religious interpretation on anyone. Many people have differing images of God. The american way is to accept and tolerate these differing views.