By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Hypocrisy on Abortion?

 

Democratic Support of UBI and Abortion at the same time is Hypocrisy

Yes 8 26.67%
 
No 22 73.33%
 
Total:30
Pemalite on 18 May 2019

The mother owns the body in question, not the fetus. Thus the mother should have the first and last say of what occurs in her body... Otherwise we are giving the rights of the host body to another human being.

If the fetus can survive via it's own power, then let it, but it shouldn't be allowed to at the expense of another person.

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

As for the Universal Basic Income... Why isn't that a thing in the USA? It works in most other developed nations with great success?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
o_O.Q on 18 May 2019
Pemalite said:
The mother owns the body in question, not the fetus. Thus the mother should have the first and last say of what occurs in her body... Otherwise we are giving the rights of the host body to another human being.

If the fetus can survive via it's own power, then let it, but it shouldn't be allowed to at the expense of another person.

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

As for the Universal Basic Income... Why isn't that a thing in the USA? It works in most other developed nations with great success?

"The mother owns the body in question, not the fetus. Thus the mother should have the first and last say of what occurs in her body... Otherwise we are giving the rights of the host body to another human being."

"If the fetus can survive via it's own power, then let it, but it shouldn't be allowed to at the expense of another person."

fascinating... are you in favour of resources being taken from richer people and being handed down to poorer people?

"As for the Universal Basic Income... Why isn't that a thing in the USA?"

steps are being taken to implement it



Metroid33slayer on 18 May 2019
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"You must not be familiar with a UBI.  It's not intended to be a livable income.  You still need a job."

1). even though its been brought up in the context of people losing their jobs to automation?

"That said, isn't it more humane to reduce the chance the child will be born into a situation where it cannot be properly cared for?"

2). are you in favour of killing some poor people since they cannot be properly cared for? well no in that case you demand that other people(generally men) take their resources and give those resources to the poor people

but when it comes to kids you don't demand that resources be allocated for them in the same way, why is that?

you would argue i suppose that it restricts the mothers bodily autonomy, without realising of course that when resources are reallocated for poor people that's also infringing on the bodily autonomy of those people who resources are being taken from

"How is trying to ensure the well being of both the mother and child inconsistent? "

3). you are trying to ensure the well being of the child by crushing its skull and then sucking its body parts out of the womb through a tube? how thoughtful of you

1). Irrelevant how or why they are no longer working.  A UBI is not a living income.

2). I'm going to need you to respond to my previous question about how you define a 'kid' before I can adequately answer you here.  However, I want social services for the fetus but until we get that, women should have the right to terminate.

3). You just described Intrauterine Cranial Decompression which a 3rd trimester abortion technique and not legal in the US without a serious medical emergency. This is why pro-choice hate debating with pro-lifers...they latter rarely understand what they are protesting against.

Metroid33slayer said:

No financial penalties, no 18 years in baby jail.

Really?  For some states, convictions can be a sentence of up to five years in prison, a fine up to $125,000 or both.  So again, where are you getting your lies from?

You honestly think a woman gets five years for abandoning her child? it doesn't happen. Ever heard of the p***y pass? Laws don't apply to women, they are getting probation for murder and for raping young boys, you should read the news. For the same crime they are three times less likely to be incarcerated and if they are they get 40% of the sentence a man gets.



EricHiggin on 18 May 2019
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Your parallels have one major failure point.  A UBI enables the lowest income earners in society to become contributing members of said society"

1). that's not true

for many people if their basic needs are provided for they won't feel the need to provide value to society, since they'll be provided for regardless

what are you basing your argument on exactly?

"An unplanned child cannot be a contributing member of society for nearly 2 decades. "

and they may never become one, that's true... which isn't any different from ubi anyway

2). i'm just amused at the hypocrisy inherent in saying we need to be compassionate and take care of the downtrodden by taking from those that have more, but when it comes to kids, the argument is fuck those kids because they will be taking resources from the mothers who have more

3). and democrats can stand there and say this shit and not see that its inconsistent and even outright toxic since it could be argued that poor people occasionally make bad choices that result in their situation but the same can never be said of the unborn

1). You must not be familiar with a UBI.  It's not intended to be a livable income.  You still need a job. 

2). By 'kids' do you mean zygotes and embryos? That said, isn't it more humane to reduce the chance the child will be born into a situation where it cannot be properly cared for?  What's worse?  Aborting an embryo or forcing the mother and child to suffer?

3). How is trying to ensure the well being of both the mother and child inconsistent?  Further, we don't condone later term abortions unless medically necessary. Viability factors into the issue.

1. Well then with this the mother and child will be fine then correct? Isn't that part of the reason of UBI? So that people who are in terrible situations have something to give them the basics and keep them going? No reasons for an abortion now correct? (I'm not including forced pregnancy in this btw)

2. I agree. 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? Why not? Because they have been allowed to live long enough to be able to make that decision for themselves?

3. UBI basically cancels out the need for the majority of abortions, and vice versa. One or the other. Neither makes much sense as far as I'm concerned.

Pemalite said:
The mother owns the body in question, not the fetus. Thus the mother should have the first and last say of what occurs in her body... Otherwise we are giving the rights of the host body to another human being.

If the fetus can survive via it's own power, then let it, but it shouldn't be allowed to at the expense of another person.

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

As for the Universal Basic Income... Why isn't that a thing in the USA? It works in most other developed nations with great success?

People should own the money they make, not anyone else, aside from the basic Gov taxes. Thus each individual should have the first and last say of what happens to their money, otherwise we are giving the highest earners much less incentive to keep doing whatever it is that is making them truckloads of money. Money that is needed to be able to give to everyone, to do whatever they want...

If people can survive via their own power, then let them, but it shouldn't be allowed at the expense of other people. Just because UBI is a 'digital abortion' for the highest earners, doesn't change the fact that someone is having something taken away from them. (Aside from those who choose to share their wealth)



JWeinCom on 18 May 2019

First off, the people you're quoting on UBI are not the same people as you're quoting on calling fetuses parasites. If you find a sufficiently large group of people, you're going to find contradictory opinions among them. It would only become hypocrisy if it were the exact same people making the arguments, or supporting both policies. This is a basic part to whole fallacy.

Secondly, you're confusing metaphor and literal. The people are above are arguing that fetus are literal parasites (or pretty close at least). For argument's sake let's just agree that UBI reception equals metaphorical parasitism. That doesn't mean I have to have the same opinion on that as I do for literal parasitism.

For example, children can easily be thought of as metaphorical parasites (in most cases). Tapeworm are a literal parasite. I have a very different opinion on how each should be handled. Is this hypocrisy? I would think not.

This is an argument by analogy fallacy. Beyond the very abstract concept of one organism benefiting from another, these situations are so far removed from one another that it's ridiculous to suggest that an opinion on one should inform an opinion on the other.



Around the Network
Jicale on 18 May 2019

I wont have an opinion on abortion since I'm a male and females say I shouldn't but, I've seen a lot of article's and comments saying males shouldn't have a say because males can't have babies but the same groups say males can give birth when (trans-males) give birth and their real males. So males should have an opinion since males can give birth. We need some consistency.



JWeinCom on 18 May 2019
Jicale said:
I wont have an opinion on abortion since I'm a male and females say I shouldn't but, I've seen a lot of article's and comments saying males shouldn't have a say because males can't have babies but the same groups say males can give birth when (trans-males) give birth and their real males. So males should have an opinion since males can give birth. We need some consistency.

I've never seen a female saying males shouldn't have opinions.  What I've heard them say is that those opinions shouldn't be used to govern their bodies.

But, if you really need consistency here you go.  If you have female reproductive organs, you have a say.  It's not that hard...



Jicale on 18 May 2019

Very good. You are absolutely correct.



melbye on 18 May 2019
Pemalite said:
The mother owns the body in question, not the fetus. Thus the mother should have the first and last say of what occurs in her body... Otherwise we are giving the rights of the host body to another human being.

If the fetus can survive via it's own power, then let it, but it shouldn't be allowed to at the expense of another person.

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

As for the Universal Basic Income... Why isn't that a thing in the USA? It works in most other developed nations with great success?

No country in the world has universal basic income, they tried it in Finland and it failed

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years



setsunatenshi on 18 May 2019

Hypocrisy is the supposed party of small government literally interfering in medical decisions between people and their doctor.
As was said before, if the fetus can survive independently outside the womb, then I can see a debate, but the same party that wants it remaining alive is the first one throwing some bootstraps the moment it's outside the womb.