Within reason. Money being taken from richer people isn't the same as giving up your OWN rights to your OWN body.
That is ultimately the crux of the issue at hand.

What if some random person on the street had a disease... And for them to survive you had to give up a chunk of your life so that they could live at your expense? You wouldn't have the right to say "no" either. You would be forced to do it.

The highest earners don't loose any incentive what so ever.
In nations with significant levels of welfare, what you describe generally doesn't occur either.

In-fact... Because there is more wealth redistribution, there is generally higher levels of spending overall across the entire populace which drives the wheels of an economy.

Remember... Someone who is a billionaire likely has a ton of money stashed in a bank somewhere, ultimately not being reinvested and thus not adding to the economy a great deal... Where-as a low-income earner will generally spend every penny they acquire...

Give a million low income earners an extra billion dollars and that billions dollars will be spent into the economy. - Give a rich person a billion dollars and it will sit in a bank somewhere.

It takes two. The male should have a say. - But at the end of the day... Because the female is the vessel carrying the fetus, she should get the final say of what happens to her own body.

It's literally an argument about property (Aka. Body) rights.

Plenty of nations with significant financial safety nets though.
I mean here the only difference from a universal income and our current Basic Income is that it is means tested.

Yeah. I was corrected prior. Cheers.

Because the mother owns the body? Not the child?

Child is more than welcomed to survive via it's own accord after it's been aborted.

Unless you are suggesting people should give up their rights to their own body? Would you give up your right to your body if I needed say... Your kidneys to survive?

Nope. Because what you are suggesting is that a person should give up their Freedoms to their own bodily autonomy.

Plus... Not all pregnancies are "intended". - Condoms break, anti-pregnancy pills falter.
A friend of mine had the "snip" after his 4th child. - Ironically, his body healed the procedure and he ended up with a 5th child. - They kept it of course, he has a good paying job being border control.

Plus... A pregnancy is 9 months, circumstances can change, you can loose a job and become homeless, you could be suffering from an illness... List goes on.

At the end of the day though... It comes down to property ownership of an individuals body... And the person who was born to that body (The mother) should have the first and last say of what happens to it.

So I assume you are against the consumption of meat? Against the death Penalty?

At the end of the day, we are approaching 8~ billion people on this planet, a few abortions isn't really that much of a big deal.

Anyone who quotes anything from the Bible can generally have their view discarded in it's entirety until they can prove their assertions with empirical evidence that it is factual with it's claims.

Separation of Church and State would be something I would like for every nation across the globe to strive towards, religion is entirely unnecessary.

"Money being taken from richer people isn't the same as giving up your OWN rights to your OWN body."

how is the money generated? is a magic wand just waved around and it forms out of nothing?

It's printed. Not entirely sure what your point is, so feel free to present it in a comprehensive manner that proves that other people should "own" the body of another person.

"So, you've answered your own question and demonstrated that supporting a woman's right to have an abortion does not necessitate thinking of a baby as a parasite.  "

i told you that the comparisons to parasites was not the central point i was making, but i can't help but notice that you are refusing to answer my question

"why are unborn babies killed?"

why don't you want to go there?

" just like a parasite does to its host."  This is clearly not a metaphorical comparison."

you don't think someone using "just like" is speaking metaphorically?

and regardless if she had said explicitly that "babies are parasites" it does not change the fact that the word parasite is used as a biological classification for certain species

"Fits the fetal mode of growth precisely" does not mean it is metaphorically like a parasite it means it is literally doing what a parasite does"

ok lets ignore her framing her whole line of argumentation with "just like" for a second, you understand of course that a metaphor can contain direct references to its subject and still be a metaphor?

if i say "the boat steered just like a fish, the ruder allowing the boat to turn just as precisely as the fins on a fish" you understand that this is a metaphor right?

"I have no idea what you're trying to get at with the workplace statistics or use of body at work.  Would a UBI force me to work a particular job?"

obviously if taxes are raised then people will have to work more time to reach the same baseline they would have previously

"Does it limit my choice of jobs to ones that are particularly risky?"

its not entirely about risk, the point i'm making is that if more time has to be spent working then that's a restriction of bodily autonomy

"Work involves using your body in a potentially risky way with or without a UBI.  "

agreed

1. My point was that you can be pro choice and not think of a baby as a parasite. You raised your question in response to that.  Then you yourself just demonstrated that point.  I'm not answering the question because it's irrelevant to the point, and you're trying to divert.  You've just demonstrated that it is possible to be pro-choice and not think of a baby as a parasite.  Is that agreed upon?  Answer that and I'll be happy to respond to your question.

2.  The phrase just like does not itself indicate if something is a simile or literal.  I could use it in a literal sense, "those two twins look just like each other", "these taste just like McDonald's fries", "I suspect you copied your homework because it looks just like Jamie's" and so on.  Or  I could use it in a simile sense "she's just like a ray of sunshine".  It goes either way. 

Phrases like "Fits the fetal mode of growth precisely" though are entirely unambiguous.  Regardless of whether or not you think they're wrong, the writers clearly are making the literal argument.  

3. "if i say "the boat steered just like a fish, the ruder allowing the boat to turn just as precisely as the fins on a fish" you understand that this is a metaphor right?"

No, it's a simile.  Similes use the word like or as.  Metaphors don't.  You understand if I say a clementine is just like a small orange I am being literal right?  Just like doesn't determine anything.  

4.  You don't have to work more if taxes are raised.  It's entirely up to you whether or not it's important to keep the same baseline, or in what type of job you would do so.  Especially if you're imagining a UBI that would actually meet everyone's basic needs.  This is not forcing anyone to use their body in any particular way that they find objectionable.  That is a monumental difference that undermines any claim of hypocrisy.

" My point was that you can be pro choice and not think of a baby as a parasite. You raised your question in response to that. "

i don't think its unreasonable to ask what motivates someone to kill an unborn baby

"You've just demonstrated that it is possible to be pro-choice and not think of a baby as a parasite.  Is that agreed upon?"

no i don't think that's a good way to assess this

this is about perspectives, specifically the perspective of someone who has a baby inside of them and wants that baby dead

i personally could not bring myself to kill the baby if i was in that position, but as i've said its not my right to police the actions of someone else

that speaks in no way to the perspective of someone else that may behave differently and choose to kill the baby, its the perspective of that person that i'm asking about not mine

"The phrase just like does not itself indicate if something is a simile or literal."

as far as i know it does

if you are saying something is "just like" something else you are doing a comparison, on the other hand to say something "is" something else is to equate the two

"Regardless of whether or not you think they're wrong, the writers clearly are making the literal argument. "

well as i've said i disagree since they used "just like"

"No, it's a simile.  Similes use the word like or as.  Metaphors don't."

oh ok haven't done school level english for a few years so i suppose i've forgotten the difference but it pretty much seems like you've conceded that its not literal regardless

"You understand if I say a clementine is just like a small orange I am being literal right?  Just like doesn't determine anything. "

you are doing a comparison that's the difference and that's what makes it either metaphorical or a simile

"You don't have to work more if taxes are raised.  It's entirely up to you whether or not it's important to keep the same baseline"

yes that's true, but i think its fairly obvious that someone who starts out middle class wants to stay middle class, i don't think that's a rare position to take... so i have to wonder why you'd seemingly pretend as if people are cool with allowing their standard of living to slide

"Especially if you're imagining a UBI that would actually meet everyone's basic needs.  This is not forcing anyone to use their body in any particular way that they find objectionable. That is a monumental difference that undermines any claim of hypocrisy."

well i suppose if you're coming at this from the point of view that people don't care if their standard of living falls then yeah i suppose you'd have a point

"I asked why do you think that way, why do you think mother's should be able to have abortions."

you didn't ask me this initially, but regardless i believe people should be as free in societies as we can possibly make them, that goes for both men and women

i don't like the idea of unborn children being killed but i accept that its not my right to police other people's behavior

" And I'm going to add if you are pro-choice why make a thread that's obviously skewed and flawed from the start, anybody who has any simple concept of science would realize this and not even post such a flawed comparison."

can you explain to me rationally how anything i've said is unscientific?

"A group of cells isn't life, it isn't a person. A miscarriage up to 8 weeks of pregnancy is indistinguishable to a heavy period."

bacteria are life and a culture of bacteria is even less significant in appearance to a period... do you at least have a fleeting understanding of why this is an incredibly stupid argument?

"The "person" you think is a person isn't actually one according to scientific evidence and facts."

it would be awesome if you actually started posting some lol

"People become wealthy by the people"

so why aren't you and all the other people demanding that other people give you free stuff rich?

"we give them extreme wealth so in return they should give a portion back to us so we all can have a better life."

you gave who wealth? are you talking about paying for products? or paying for entertainment? you understand of course that these are transactions right?

as in you are not "giving", the other person is offering something you perceive to have a sufficient value for you to exchange a certain amount of money for

but regardless you do understand of course that most of the products you use come from the labour of much poorer people in inda, china, africa etc right? how much of your wealth have you donated to improving conditions in those countries?

or do your principles only apply to other people and not you?

if you are living in america and have time to be a video games enthusiast then you really shouldn't be making an argument as if you are part of "the poor"

" Their wealth isn't being taken away, just a portion would be redistributed to the population to help society."

if they have an obligation to give some of their resources to people who are less fortunate than they are why does this not also apply with pregnant women in your view? unborn babies will literally die if mothers refuse to share some of their resources with them

its kind of inconsistent to argue "well these people over here need to give their resources to these other people because otherwise they'll die" but then say "well these people over here don't need to give their resources to these other people and we'll just let those people die"

"Keep in mind we're hypothetically talking about multi-billionaires here"

with regards to what? taxation? so you don't want to pay taxes?