its a fair question, how do you believe wealth is generated?

if its just "printed" as you suggest why can't you just sit down now and spend the whole night printing money for the poor?

"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."

i don't but people who argue for increased taxation do, its just that they hide it behind flowery dishonest language like 'responsibility to your community" does that sound familiar?

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.

1.  I'm confused.  You seem to be indicating that you are pro-choice, and that you do not think of a fetus as a parasite.  Yet, you're also saying it's not possible to be pro choice without thinking of a fetus as a parasite.  Those two things directly contradict themselves.

2.  You're just wrong on metaphors.  Metaphors are by definition figurative, not just any comparison.  Two is greater than one is not a metaphor.  A clementine is just like a small orange is not a simile or a metaphor.  They're tatements and  literal comparisons.   

And you can use "is" in a metaphor.  It is raining cats and dogs, her body is a wonderland, this room is a pigsty, this relationship is a roller coaster, this classroom is a zoo, Brock Lesnar is a beast, he is a machine, she is an angel, the Yankees are on fire, the Jet's owner is a clown,  she's a maneater, my boss is a pig, that car is a lemon, etc etc.  All metaphors, all using some form of is.

If you think something is metaphorical just because it uses like, or literal just because it uses is, you're mistaken.  

3.  I never said my point of view is that people don't care.  My point of view it that they have a choice.  They do not have to engage in any particular activity as a direct result of a UBI increase or any other tax.  A ban on abortion does force a pregnant woman to gestate a baby.  Just one of the many ways these two situations are incongruous.  

This going to be my last post in this thread because your rhetoric has made it clear to me that you're a person that use an incredible amount of logical fallacies and believes they are never wrong even when presented with facts. I argue to try and change humble minds to believe what is right and factual, I don't argue with prideful people who won't admit when they are wrong, and in this case you are most definitely wrong, and I also don't argue with people who love arguing for the sake of arguing which you clearly have represented here. I have better things to do with my time. You don't even have to read the rest of my post because I most certainly won't read your, no doubt, willfully ignorant response. 

I did ask you that first question in my very first post I asked "And why?" meaning "and why do you believe this?" You didn't even understand a simple question like that, it's amazing

What you're saying is unscientific because if you actually researched what you're arguing about you'd come to the conclusion that a zygote isn't a conscious human life and cannot exist outside the womb and thus CANNOT be classified as a person which you have said multiple times.

Bacteria is life, you are correct but nobody's arguing that point or even brought it up. You are wrong though in saying that bacteria is less significant than a zygote, even in appearance. Do you realize what bacteria is, what it does and what it looks like? Obviously you don't because you're comparing the two but like I said a little research goes a long way. I brought up the miscarriage point because I thought you'd be smart enough to deduce what I was meaning but I'll spell it out for you. The miscarriage illustrates that even our body doesn't consider this zygote a person, it doesn't even have a heartbeat. The cells are grouping together to eventually form a person with a heart and a brain -that's what ultrasounds pick up, the electrical activity or pulsing of the cells forming- but naturally that's not always a guarantee and the zygote is aborted from the body. So should we impose consequences on women who have miscarriages then? Absolutely not.

Being or getting rich isn't that cut and dry, it's incredibly helpful and almost necessary that you be born in a certain higher socioeconomic class or a relatively free country to be rich and it's incredibly helpful if you're a white cis male. These things are inter-sectional and creating the logical fallacy of oversimplifying it is also wrong. It's all these social issues combined that creates this huge gap from the rich and the poor.

Technically I'm poor in the U.S. but I'd be rich somewhere else, and I see what you're trying to say but that's neither here nor there. Most democrats and all progressives (which I am) support labor laws that help these poor individuals in these poorer countries. So I don't see how that argument has anything to do with anything. That's like saying "oh so you want to improve society? But you participate in society. Aha!" Well yeah, duh, of course but that doesn't mean I like the way society is now.  When it comes to transactions I am sort of talking about that but there are other bigger issues and things people get rich off of like war, there a many people who make an incredible amount of money off of war. Also there are large amounts of companies that use poor laborers in poorer countries and take advantage of them to make huge profits and it's wrong. Just so we're clear I'm not really just talking about goods, if that's what you think then you have a narrow, naive view of how people get rich.

Again you're making the fundamentally flawed claim that a zygote is a person based on no scientific evidence or facts whatsoever. You're basing your whole argument around your feeling that it's a person, when in fact it's not. The fact of the matter is that a zygote isn't a person and you don't want to accept that for some reason that you're not disclosing. It's not a person to begin with so you can't make your comparison and so the bases of your comparison is erroneous and wrong. And so what I am saying isn't hypocritical based on facts. I wouldn't let a person die but a zygote isn't a person.

I believe everyone should be taxed in order to run our society but the wealthiest should be taxed more and also they should not be given breaks that even working class people don't get.

You can. In-fact many countries do. Russia and China being prime examples... However it comes with a little side-effect... Care to guess what it is?

I think you are side-stepping what I am asking of you here?

If those same individuals aren't protesting against the consumption of animals and the death penalty... Would you agree that perhaps they are being a little bit hypocritical?

In saying that... Most things that are political tend to draw very stern views that typically aren't changeable between highly vocal opponents. - However the debate isn't about them changing their views, it's about others seeing the discussion take place and seeing the differing perspectives that forms each argument.

"You can. In-fact many countries do. Russia and China being prime examples"

so the only commodity russia and china trade in is printed money?

"I think you are side-stepping what I am asking of you here?"

i never at any point suggested that i believe people should own the bodies of other people... so it wasn't a question to be taken seriously from the beginning

Let's say there's a husband and wife, and he supports them financially, but over time she gets crazier and crazier, and more annoying as each day passes. He tries a bunch of things like getting her help and even lives separate from her at times, yet she still goes out of her way to make his life beyond miserable. Let's even say she got examined and somehow comes away without being diagnosed as a nut job because she's that sly. If the husband can't take it anymore because he feels like she isn't worth it and is a burden, but won't divorce her because he doesn't think she should be able to leech off of him financially anymore, and can't live his life because she's clearly willing to go out of her way to make his life miserable, so much so that he's been pondering suicide, if he one day snaps and literally beats her to death, should he get away with it? Should someone be forced to withhold physical rage towards another? If he's going to cause harm or even death to himself otherwise, which scenario is preferred?

Is it his fault for getting into the situation in the first place or by not using another option to get out of it, as much as he doesn't want to? Is it ok because things weren't planned or expected to turn out that way, and it's his mind and body that were also at risk, and it's his body to decide what to do with?

What's the point in working harder or smarter if you're being given enough free money? Where's the incentive to do more? Because you could one day make it to the top? Where is the top? Was it gasoline transportation, single core 1GHz CPU's, PS2, Blackberry's? Why create newer better stuff if there's little incentive to do so, other than life or death scenario's like war or pandemic's?

How much billionaires have stashed vs how much is locked up in some multi year fund or stock probably isn't as much as many would think in comparison. You don't get billionaire rich by not wisely investing a bunch of that money. You also don't stay that rich if you give it away. The world is so connected today that if you run a multi billion dollar business, having billions to keep things going if something happens isn't a dumb idea. Just look at the stir over the tariff war. That's just one possibility of the many that could hurt your business, that you basically have no control over. What you do have control over, is how much you decided to put away for a rainy day, or year. Most billionaires did whatever had to be done to make that money, and many people benefited off of that in some manner in terms of goods or services rendered.

One of the main reasons socialism doesn't work is because many of the bright people and hard workers stop doing so because there is little incentive. If everyone is treated as much the same and equally as possible, that's exactly what you end up with. The bright idea's disappear and less and less work get's completed. Why come up with a great idea if you might not be able to make it happen because you can't get enough money to do it? Even if you find a way to, why do it for a pat on the back? Why work your butt off if it's not going to really help you or the company get ahead much if at all? Once the loopholes are sealed and taxes are jacked up the businesses will slowly crumble or they will flat out leave.

I never said that.

So you agree that Abortion should be legal then?

So basically you are giving me a choice between an individual harming another or themselves.

The answer really depends on perspective, in the rescue services you are taught to put your own life first and not the life of others... Because if you are somehow impaired, who is going to rescue the other person?

But to answer your questions... No. He shouldn't get away with murder. Yes someone should be forced to withhold physical rage towards another.

But the difference is, the woman isn't surviving at the expense of another, making your entire argument entirely redundant.

If you are asking if I am okay with Euthanasia? Fuck oath I am.

The fallacy here is that you don't recognize that wealth is all relative.

Someone who has nothing will see someone with a bicycle and think they have wealth.
A person with a bicycle will see someone with a car and think they have wealth.
A person with a car will see someone with a motorhome and think they are wealthy.
A person with a motorhome will see someone with a private jet and think they are wealthy.

There is always more to strive for. - Just because I earn 6 figures doesn't mean I wouldn't want more wealth.

The rich have an amazing savings rate. More than you think. - They aren't rich because they are spending money you know.
https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-by-income-wealth-class/

That is cash not being reinvested... And thus my point still stands that poorer income brackets tend to spend more than the rich and thus contribute more to the economy overall.

Many european and oceanic nations implement various "socialist" practices in with their capitalist markets to great success actually.
Case in point... Norway, New Zealand and Australia.

There are businesses who target those lower social-economic demographics and become rather successful too.
For example: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-20/radio-rentals-reaps-$90-million-in-centrelink-payments/6333690