>>474
"Health care has been around since Tiamat knows when. The US is a mixed economy, meaning that people can choose what they want."
Socialized medicine is not freedom to choose what I want.
"Since the health insurance market is as bad on people as the diseases (50 % of bankruptcy appeals were caused by med costs, 75 % of these 50 % were made by people with insurance), sorry for not being Adam Smith up in this clusterfucker."
You are still evading the point that the health care market was initially screwed up by people who thought the government should stick its nose into the economy. You now advocate, as the solution to this problem, complete socialization.
This is just like how our capitalist monetary system was initially screwed up - people sticking their nose into the capitalist economy, intervening in it, etc. We were doing fine up until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
The resulting depression from people tampering with the money supply then drove a flood of people to vote for Roosevelt, who then instituted Social Security to fix the depression caused by the Federal Reserve tampering with the money supply..
I must applaud Bush for at least moving in the direction to reverse this colossal failure of judgement, even if the fix was only a temporary, and likely incremental change towards something better.
"Well, if a culture makes people less worthy because of their phenotype or natal conditions, that culture may have to be changed through arbitrary means."
Fail. It is really as simple as this: nobody has a *right* to a job. Employers *do* have rights to their property. Unless there is a binding contract, they can stop paying you for doing work, and tell you to leave the premises (its their private property) whenever they damn well please.
If I am giving out cookies on a streetcorner, and I own said cookies, and someone I just plain don't like for whatever reason comes up and wants one, I can refuse to give it to her. (hello, they are *MY* cookies.)
"The fact that you started with making the holy procedure of consensual procreation of the species into a sort of competition is telling of how extreme one has to go to belittle women here."
Child support laws didn't exist until they were arbitrarily inserted into the equation. The other side initiated it in pushing for them.
"First, a minute portion of fetuses "Experience" jack,"
That 'minute portion' is a portion of a whole so large that that 'minute portion' happens to be around 15,500 *per year*. Doesn't sound so fucking 'minute' any more, does it? Sept. 11th was what, 2-3 thousand dead? I forget, something like that. Well this is over 5 times that sum. Considering that Sept.11th warranted various bits of legislation to be passed, I think it is *easy* to say that the same should be done for this 15,500, which is *far* from a 'minute' number, unlike 9/11.
"There is nothing consistent with having to value one human liberty over another to hang onto an argument."
My position *is* consistent. I am not doing it 'to hang onto an argument', I am doing it because I think this is what is right.
"Also, moderation is not centrism. I believe in incremental, steady changes that begin from a stable situation."
Then that isn't 'moderation', since your end goal is *not* to be 'moderate', or 'centrist', but rather to be a real libertarian. Incremental, steady changes sound good to me too, but I sure as fuck am not going to settle for 'moderation' between one shitty view and one good view. The point being, those incremental steady changes are progressing slowly toward something that is not 'moderate' or 'centrist'.
"The system of human liberties are a house of cards, you can't ever remove one and expect things to stay. If this means that I can't tell employers to behave like humans when employing, so be it."
Far more sensible than what you were saying earlier. The point I would like to make is that since you can't have any liberties without the right to life, that that right is at the base of your imaginary stack of cards, if you see what I mean.
"Men don't accept her egg.. it is the reverse, women are accepting the semen."
"This is not about what occurs where, it is about cause and effect and as such men are equally responsible."
It is about a transfer of ownership.. if the man is transferring ownership and possession of the semen to the woman, then it is no longer his, and thus the child won't be his either - it would be the woman's. (Yes, obviously it would be his genes, but that doesn't make it his property, since ownership was transferred via sex, in my view.)
Since it is then the woman's property, what develops of it and of her body is also her property *up until* it becomes a human life, at which point it gains rights to both life and self-ownership... and becomes a seperate entity.