I certainly didn't imply a fetus is in the same line of head lice and tapeworm. Parasites are not always bad, there is small fish that are considered parasites, living off big fish and clean their bodies in return. I know it's shocking, but a fetus is indeed parasitic in terms of its mechanism for survival.
I'm going to ask you to read your first post and tell me how we weren't supposed to get that connotation out of it.
Refman, you should re-read Panda's post. Parasitism a small part of his post, and was employed to illustrate a broader point. This cop/health care thing is way off topic, but I'll go there one more time, as it seems to be at the heart of our basic disagreement re: gov't. You seem to be saying that health care should only be provided by the government in life/death situations. I disagree and think public health care is among the best ways we can spend our tax dollars (along with feeding hungry people). I think cops are good for life/death situations only and should leave me and everyone I know the hell alone the rest of the time. You disagree. We are both libertarians, with exceptions. We just disagree about the exceptions.
I explicitly listed prevention as one of the medical needs. I believe in preventitive medicine to combat ill health in all segments of the populace. I simply do not believe there is a lot of utility in expanding the definition of preventative medicine to the prevention of birth.
Alright, Refman. I misread you a little on the public health care thing. Characterizing abortion as the prevention of birth is some pretty loaded rhetoric for this time of night. And I fear we're getting farther apart rather than closer to understanding each other's sincere beliefs on this. I'll go back to my first take, which really is the only important thing I have to say on the matter: I believe that everyone who has a strong opinion on this subject is sincere and has a valid, meaningful point. And I think the best we can do is to recognize that in each other. Good night.
I think we're understanding each other pretty well and I don't think we are THAT far apart. In any event...have a good night my friend.
For me, the face of abortion is a dead child. Women's argument for the pro-abortion stance push men to the edge or completely aside. It's half our genetic material. It's creation is also dependent on our "contribution." A human life is being snuffed; you wouldn't want me to be indignant?!? Which demises are you not indignant about?
Here's what I don't understand about <B>some</B> pro-lifers. How can someone be anti-abortion, except in cases of rape or incest? How can one be OK with murder in one case, but not in another? I've never received an answer to this question by the way.
Because it's in the common interest of the society to have children adequately provided for. If you allow men to have the option to not support a child because they didn't want it, you'd see a huge rise in the number of pro-choice men. It's not a perfect and consistent line of thinking, but not many things are.
Here's an answer, although I'm sure I'll get flamed for it. Rape and incest are illegal acts. Should we force somebody to become a mother because she was the victim of violent crime? I think not. When the sex act is consensual...you take your chances. You went in knowing the risks and had the fun. Not so with being a crime victim. All that being said that is just my morality. I hold no grudge against those who have had abortions. I just know I would never want anybody I was involved with to have one. But then again...any baby I helped conceive would have a loving father.
Agreed. The existence of abortion does not absolve men of the reprecussions of their actions. One does not necessarily follow the other.
I understand Refman, but it's still saying murder's OK because the woman didn't consent. The fetus is still just as innocent as the one that is conceived in a consensual act.
I've given you the best answer I can. It's not perfect. There is just something fundamentally unfair about a rape resulting in a child. Talk about emotionally damaging.
Refman: Thanks for clearing that up. I do understand how you feel and recognize that as a problem. I wish more fathers did care about their children's well-being. giddyup: As usual, as subtle as a sledgehammer when it comes to this topic. Just kidding. I recognize your issue. We all understand that, with your strong beliefs, abortion is unacceptable. But, really, you don't have to try and prove everyone else is wrong and immoral for their choices. In fact, chances are, you probably will do more to alienate people from your position by continuing with the histronics than you will to indere them. My great grandmother used to say, "You get more flies with honey than you do with flypaper." Your outrage is obvious and can be necessary when fighting battles like this one. However, you might consider understanding too. When you are talking to people here who are obviously not inhuman monsters who care about nothing, your angry accusations mostly fall on deaf ears.
I'm not criticizing your response, buddy. I just find that the most inconsisent line of thought in the entire abortion debate. I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone.
I know you wouldn't. I guess all that can be said is that sometimes the law is inconsistent because often we place fundamental fairness over logic. I'm confortable with that...to a degree.
That's one of the things that's hard about being more liberal. Many times, we argue for things that we feel are fundamentally fair while we get countered with more logical arguments. It's really hard to win a debate saying "It's just fairer, dammit!!"
I feel ya dude. I have had many liberal friends over the years. 99% of the time they immediately go to emotional argument. I'm not saying that it doesn't have its place, but if it's the first card out of the deck it is typically a weak argument. That is what I have come to repect about you, Batman Jones and Jeff. You come to liberalism with a sense of logic tempered by emotion. It makes for some great debates...and I thank all of you for it.
I'll admit I'm one of the worst when it comes to arguing on emotion. I personally think I've gotten tons better lately, but I used to be horrible.
