I looked up the definitions and you are correct, they are two different things. A fetus is not a child.
Of course not....that's why there are two different words....a simple fact that one poster refuses to acknowledge. A fetus is no more a "child" than it is a 21 year old.
Abortion to me is purely religious. I find that most people who are religious believe it's some type of murder. I myself, being more libertarian than Republican, have trouble seeing that a fetus = person. Just don't add up
Bigotry, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... This may come as a shock to you, but in the physical realm of our existence every action has a reaction. If I decide to shoot myself and therefore also consent to the bullet penetrating my skull. The laws of physics don't care about what you deem to be fair. I don't know how much I have to spell this out for you: The woman CHOSE to act in a certain way and she KNEW the consequences of that actions. No written agreement is needed, because permission is granted by the fact that she CHOSE not to use protection during sexual intercourse. If we were talking about a man having to pay child support right now you wouldn't even try to argue with me, because you'd agree with me that if he didn't want to have to pay child support he should've used protection. Do you have any idea how stupid it would sound if I sat here trying to argue that "just because a man consented to having unprotected sex, doesn't mean he consented to pay child support." He doesn't have to consent, because it is HIS fault the baby exists and therefore HIS responsibility to provide for it. Actions have consequences, deal with it! You can't just go around screwing any random person and than scream "sexism" if the laws of nature happen to be that your actions have consequences. If you don't like it, take it up with God if you believe in him. No, they do not. They do not have the right to murder someone to get out of the consequences of their actions. What is your argument they do? What facts I named were "alternative"? The fact that fetuses have heartbeats, sensory functions and a bloodflow? I think you will find those facts to be very much in line with the scientific literature available to you. Oh God, your reasoning is so illogical it is painful. Are you honestly arguing that Newton's third law is sexist? So if I jump in front of a bus and hurt myself, you'd be sexist for pointing out that I shouldn't have jumped in front of a bus if I didn't want to get hurt because "you want me to be punished for choosing to jump in front of a bus"? Because that is literally the line of reasoning you are going here for. You are trying to argue that the laws of physics should be changed if you don't like the result. I think you'd get along very nicely with this young girl: This is not an argument, I already explained why and I could easily turn this around on you. Why do YOU think YOU are the ruler of what responsibility consists of? At least I'm consistent in my morals. I may believe that a woman is responsible for bearing a child she conceived, but I also think a man is responsible for providing for a child he conceived. You change your principles whenever it suits your feminist agenda. You aren't a feminist because you want women to be treated fairly, you are a feminist because you are a woman and you think feminism means that women should just get whatever is convenient to them regardless of morality or justice. There is a word for that line of reasoning: sexism. No a responsible PERSON takes RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, and doesn't go around murdering people because it is in their own self interest. And if you are actually incapable of providing for yourself and a child in the western world you really ARE irresponsible. My mum raised me and my sister on her own on minimum wage, us "lower class people" don't take kindly to teenage middle/upper class white girls acting like they know what we can and cannot do better than we can. MOD EDIT>>>INSULT<<< You're dancing on a fine line between ideological zealousness and insanity.
What do you mean "prove it"? Are you saying that every political group in existence completely agrees on everything unanimously? Do you know how many different types of communism there are? Just because a group has the same values doesn't mean they agree on everything. EDIT: In fact I'd like to point out that the only reason I made this thread is to see what other libertarians think about it. I wanted to see if people that hold the same principles come to the same conclusion as I do, not discuss my principals. That is an entirely different discussion which has no place here.
Of course a fetus the developing stage of a child as a child is the developing stage of a teenager which is the developing stage of an adult. Because the fetus does not have a voice does not give you or anyone the right to terminate it.
Did you know the OT of the Bible was originally written in ancient Hebrew? To understand the true meaning, that must be taken into consideration....but then you really don't give a rats a$% do you?
sounds like you were brainwashed, would you want to force rape victims to have their rapists babies.... fact is, it's not a life until it has a consciousness
Nope, it doesn't...a fetus isn't legally a person until it's born. And the Anti-Choicers do NOT realize what can of worms they'd be opening if a fetus ever was deemed a "person"......abortion would still be legally justified.
Is it a baby or is it a child???Come on, they are two different things according to you. A fetus is a developing baby who is a developing child who is a developing teenager who is a developing adult who becomes an elderly citizen. That is the life cycle. You start at one end and seek to destroy.
I don't, because I don't consider zygotes to be humans because they don't share any characteristics with humans. They got plenty of time to abort their child before it becomes murder. Also, if a zygote were a human then it would be wrong for a woman to abort it. Just because something bad happened to a woman doesn't mean that woman has the right to murder the baby, who had nothing to do with it. Also, I think you would find it hard to get brainwashed into being pro-life where I live. 26 out of my country's 27 parties are pro-choice, the remaining one only got 1,5 percent of the votes.
exactly, and if you give a give a fetus a right, real people get it too, so if I needed someone to filter my blood, I could hook up to them and they could not unhook me or be charged with murder as unhooking me would kill me, so they would be stuck with me for life or until such time I could survive on my own
ok, I thought you meant you were now anti-choice, you have just changed your opinion on where life starts, not become anti-abortion 26 weeks seems to be the consensus http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/ "a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."
That, and also that it is wrong to kill as soon as human life starts. I should've been clearer in my main post but I actually only wanted to see if other libertarians thought it follows the Non Aggression Principle so thought that wasn't relevant, my apologies.
Oh? DO show where the word "bigotry" appears in what you quoted : """ Funny quote from the biology challenged. Consent to one act (sex) is not consent to any other act. And women can't "consent" to conception....it either happens or it doesn't , the woman has no control over that SEPERATE act."" I never mentioned 'fair" either (????) Do you READ what you quote? Ever? And so what if every action has a reaction...that has no relation to the right of women to have an abortion. Uh, hate to break to ya but the "Laws of Physics " don't over rule actual law.... NO, women do NOT know if they will become pregnant by having sex......sex only results in pregnancy less than 10% of the time. WHERE is the law that says women "grant permission" to give birth if they choose to have sex? No, the law says consent to ONE act is NOT consent to ANY OTHER ACT. Now, according to you, if YOU consent to let a person enter your house you just gave them permission to eat all your food, beat you up, and piss on the floor.... Don't you feel weird letting them do that? You can't because the LAW says he has to pay child support since he has a CHILD. . Yup, it is his legal responsibility to provide for a BORN CHILD. However, he can also run off and not pay . Again, I have no idea who you're talking about, I have mentioned sexism in this thread...(???) Yes, actions have consequences but YOU do not rule on how everyone should handle those consequences....if you want to keep that bad car you bought because you feel you have to bear the consequences of your actions, go ahead! That's nuts but if you want to stick to your code of conduct THAT is what you have to do (while people ridicule you for keeping a bad car) From your bossy tone, I thought I was talking to him............ Abortion is not murder...it's a legal medical procedure even if you and god disagree law overrules you both Babble about something someone else must've said...I didn't say you were sexist. But if you want to punish women for having sex (without you ) by forcing like slaves and cattle to give birth you're probably a sexist. Ya, you can turn it around but didn't have the guts to ANSWER IT : .WHY do you think YOU are the ruler of what responsibility consists of? I never said I was, I have maintained that individuals decide for themselves what is or isn't responsible....YOU don't. And all your babbling hysterically about feminism is just so much "Bitter man" hogwash... LOL!!!! BUT YOU think you can tell all women what they can do.....HILARIOUS!!!! ...and you are dancing a fine line between flamebaiting and discussion....getting frustrated?
most agree with that, it's just when life starts that is the question..... most believe not until consciousness
Now you're squirming and wriggling.......before you called a fetus a child and NOW you've CHANGED it to "developing child"... Couldn't you read the post of mine you quoted?: """A fetus is a fetus, it is a baby (or child) when it's born. There are different words to designate different things....""" Then let's call a fetus "dust" since we are ALL "developing dust"...(for the slow, we all turn to dust in the end )
Yup, that's because what Anti-Choicers never realize is that with rights comes RESTRICTIONS. They want the fetus to have rights with NO restrictions which destroys women's rights. THEY would scream if they were forced to give another person blood without their consent or be forced to give their heart to someone else...but forcing women to use their body to sustain the life of another "person" is all righty right with them!!!
I did not look them up, I made an assumption, but I was quite certain they are not the same definition. AFAIK, fetuses are not afforded the same rights as persons are. Actually, I'm quite certain of that also.
I consider myself libertarian. I don't come to the same conclusion as you. A fetus is not a person. A fetus is not afforded the same rights as a person. The rights afforded a fetus is what the mother chooses. At this time, I think this is the correct viewpoint. Note: I used to be total anti abortion. I still would not want my wife/daughter/etc to have an abortion. But I leave it up to the woman.
