"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."