Am I 'willing'? Sure.
Fine, if kept to private insurance schemes.. -- Yet we all know that private/government boundries have virtually ceased to exist in medical insurance. - Thus in effect you admit that socialistic means are OK if used to 'good' ends..
but, Can I afford it? That is a more difficult question... Am I 'willing' to send my children to private school [instead of public school]? Am I willing to donate to charity [rather than to welfare]? Am I 'willing' to save for my retirement [rather than depending on social security]? There are lots of things that I am 'willing' to do...But I don't have many options after 35% of my income is confiscated from my paycheck...After paying for all of these wonderful 'free' services that the state provides [most of which I will probably never use] there is only enough cash to pay for rent, food and transportation.
I apologize if this answer seems like a 'dodge'.
Seems? -- It is.
Quite a long effort too..
- I think you realise what a socialistic hole you've dug, and are trying to rationalize it with volume..
I don't pretend to have all the answers. That is why I am a FReeper [lookin' for answers]. The point that I am trying to make is that there are many solutions to these problems. However, our options are quite limited when we try to apply them to the [statist/collectivist] real world.
Yep - Sure thing.. Yet you want to add to the "[statist/collectivist]" laws in this country by prohibiting abortion... Counterintuitive.
I am sure that I don't have to remind most libertarians and conservatives that the state is the root of many of these problems and that sometimes I feel like a 'dog chasing my own tail' trying to solve this stuff [socialism] with half-ass solutions [socialism-lite] rather than real solutions [true individual liberty].
Well at least you see some of the dichotomy in your own reasoning.
The "real solutions [to] [true individual liberty]", are to be found by restoring respect for our constitutional basics..
Not by advocating abortion 'law'.
I admit nothing of the sort. Wonderful extrapolation. Your argument reminds me of some of the stuff that the statists [Cultural Jihad, Kevin Curry, etc.] around here sometimes spew against libertarians: 'You don't support the War On Drugs? Then you must be a dope smoking libertine...'
'Yet you want to add to the "[statist/collectivist]" laws in this country by prohibiting abortion... Counterintuitive.' -tpaine
Yet you want to arbitrarily legitimatize a procedure that may [or may not] be the murdering of an individual. If your arbitrary 'standard of viability' is incorrect then wouldn't we be guilty of allowing the initiation of deadly force against an individual? If there is even the slightest possibility that abortion is the murder of an individual then isn't protecting the life of the individual far more important than any minor loss of a womans freedom by preventing a medical procedure?
'The "real solutions [to] [true individual liberty]", are to be found by restoring respect for our constitutional basics.. Not by advocating abortion 'law'.' -tpaine
I agree with 'restoring respect for our constitutional basics', however this particular issue isn't well addressed [if addressed at all] in that document. Yah...I know...'Roe V. Wade'...I got my copy of the 'Constitution' right here...Lemme see here...Oh yah! This must be what Justice Blackmun was lookin' at: If I squint really hard, turn down the lights and hold my breath for a couple o' minutes I can almost make out the phrase 'right to privacy' in the left margin...Or it may just be a booger from Alex Hamilton...