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
o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

Your parallels have one major failure point.  A UBI enables the lowest income earners in society to become contributing members of said society which in turn helps the whole society.  An unplanned child cannot be a contributing member of society for nearly 2 decades.  Worse still for a mother who may already be struggling and now has to struggle even harder.

Are you including the paternal figure here too?

"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.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

How do you ensure everyone a basic income? you do so by siphoning more resources from the people who are gathering resources to begin with(typically men ironically) restricting their bodily autonomy... seeing the parallels here? Is this not like a baby siphoning resources from a mother? 

Please discuss if its a fair comparison or not below

Your parallels have one major failure point.  A UBI enables the lowest income earners in society to become contributing members of said society which in turn helps the whole society.  An unplanned child cannot be a contributing member of society for nearly 2 decades.  Worse still for a mother who may already be struggling and now has to struggle even harder.

ironmanDX said:
That's disgusting.

I'm all for abortion unless it's being used as birth control. If you did the deed, face up to the responsibility.

Are you including the paternal figure here too?

Men are made responsible by law wether they like it or not. The law goes after him and rapes his finances for 18 years and if he misses one payment he is thrown in jail. But unlike men, women can opt out of responsibility. She can abort, put up for adoption, abandon her baby in a public toilet,building or even chuck it in the garbage to be found and no offence has been committed and she faces no financial penalties. That's female privilege for you.



Metroid33slayer said:
SpokenTruth said:

Your parallels have one major failure point.  A UBI enables the lowest income earners in society to become contributing members of said society which in turn helps the whole society.  An unplanned child cannot be a contributing member of society for nearly 2 decades.  Worse still for a mother who may already be struggling and now has to struggle even harder.

Are you including the paternal figure here too?

Men are made responsible by law wether they like it or not. The law goes after him and rapes his finances for 18 years and if he misses one payment he is thrown in jail. But unlike men, women can opt out of responsibility. She can abort, put up for adoption, abandon her baby in a public toilet,building or even chuck it in the garbage to be found and no offence has been committed and she faces no financial penalties. That's female privilege for you.

That's only if she peruses and is awarded alimony/child support by the courts.  It's not mandated by law itself. And you can miss payments without jail.  All that is dependent upon the court order.

And a woman cannot abandon her baby without penalty.  That's literally child abandonment, neglect, etc...  Where are you getting these lies from?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

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.

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

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?"

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? "

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



SpokenTruth said:
Metroid33slayer said:

Men are made responsible by law wether they like it or not. The law goes after him and rapes his finances for 18 years and if he misses one payment he is thrown in jail. But unlike men, women can opt out of responsibility. She can abort, put up for adoption, abandon her baby in a public toilet,building or even chuck it in the garbage to be found and no offence has been committed and she faces no financial penalties. That's female privilege for you.

That's only if she peruses and is awarded alimony/child support by the courts.  It's not mandated by law itself. And you can miss payments without jail.  All that is dependent upon the court order.

And a woman cannot abandon her baby without penalty.  That's literally child abandonment, neglect, etc...  Where are you getting these lies from?

No financial penalties, no 18 years in baby jail.



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

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.

"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:
SpokenTruth said:

That's only if she peruses and is awarded alimony/child support by the courts.  It's not mandated by law itself. And you can miss payments without jail.  All that is dependent upon the court order.

And a woman cannot abandon her baby without penalty.  That's literally child abandonment, neglect, etc...  Where are you getting these lies from?

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?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

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?

"Irrelevant how or why they are no longer working."

its relevant when its being proposed as a substitute for wages when someone has lost a job

"I'm going to need you to respond to my previous question about how you define a 'kid'"

i was referring to unborn children

"women should have the right to terminate."

why don't women have a responsibility to their community to pass resources down to their kids as you expect richer people have a responsibility to give some of their resources to poorer people?

"Cranial Decompression which a 3rd trimester abortion technique"

a child has facial features in place at 13 weeks btw

"This is why pro-choice hate debating with pro-lifers"

never said i was prolife, i've said that i think women should have the right to kill their unborn children, but that doesn't mean i can't point out hypocrisy coming from the democrats on this issue



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}::--

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



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.