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
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)



Around the Network

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.



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.



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...



Very good. You are absolutely correct.



Around the Network
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



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.



JWeinCom said:
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.

"First off, the people you're quoting on UBI are not the same people as you're quoting on calling fetuses parasites."

well they have not explicitly said so but i'm pretty sure that the vast majority of democrats in support of ubi are also in support of abortion and abortion at its very core is a process which treats unborn babies as if they are unwanted parasites

do you deny that?

"This is a basic part to whole fallacy. "

no that's not really true and i've addressed why above

"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."

this has nothing to do with confusing literal and metaphorical

the people i quoted are using unborn babies as metaphors for parasites because and this is the most relevant part they take resources from another entity and restrict the bodily autonomy of that entity

i'm saying that a parallel can be drawn between this and when the same people argue that we need to take more resources from certain people and give those resources to other people causing a restriction in bodily autonomy in the first group of people as a result

i don't see how you can try to deny the clear comparison being done here, i can of course understand the motivation but the outright denial? that's surprising to me

"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."

that's great, but that's not really relevant to the argument i made since here you are showing different methods of handling seemingly similar situations whereas in my case i showed how the methods used (siphoning resources from the haves to the have nots) are similar in handling the situations i brought up

you essentially built a strawman, torched it and said "AHA! got you!" 

"This is an argument by analogy fallacy."

it would be if you actually addressed what i posted instead of attacking a strawman

"Beyond the very abstract concept of one organism benefiting from another"

well that's your opinion, if you don't think the two can be compared well that's ok, we can agree to disagree

i personally think its pretty darn clear that there is an obvious correlation here

to reiterate, the baby needs resources from the mother to survive, however, this impacts negatively on the mother because she loses resources to the baby and her bodily autonomy is restricted

the poor according to democrats need resources from other people to survive, however, this impacts negatively on those people because they lose resources to the poor and their bodily autonomy is restricted(more work is required to gather resources for example)

you appear to be arguing that you can look at these two situations and not see the clear connection between them and that's ok

" 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."

well lets try to isolate the similarities between them for a minute ok?

1. Person cannot gather the resources needed to survive on their own

2. The person requires resources from another to survive

3. Resources are channeled from haves to have nots

4. Bodily autonomy is restricted in the haves as a result

differences

1. haves/have nots can be plural in one instance but are always singular in the other

2. ...



setsunatenshi said:
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.

"As was said before, if the fetus can survive independently outside the womb"

do you think the rich should pay more taxes in keeping with their responsibility to their communities?



I'm going to tell you point blank NO this isn't a fair comparison at all, in fact you'd have better luck comparing apples to oranges or apples to steak for that matter. Before I tell you why you're wrong OP answer me this, are you pro-choice or anti-choice and why?

As for me, I'm pro-choice. It's the woman's body so she should be able to decide what to do with it and have final say. Men have control over their body, so should women. It's that simple. If you're against abortion, here's a simple tip, don't get one!