Originally posted by whodey
Have you ever heard of an elective medical procedure such as a nose job? There is a difference betweeen a medical procedure that is recommended by a physician to help maintain ones health verses a medical procedure that is purely elective. To help drive home the point even further, have you ever heard of someone going home from the hospital AMA or against m ...[text shortened]... help aleviate a psychological issue verses adressing the psycholgical issue in and of itself.

Diseases are "natural processes", too. So are tapeworms or bad breath. No one says that you are "demanding" Listerine to treat the last. "Abortion on demand" is a brainless catch phrase of fanatics.

Originally posted by no1marauder
People have heart surgery when they think they need it. People have abortions when they think they need it. There is no difference. No one can "demand" that a doctor do either.

I think you are obscuring the different "needs" in these examples. A person with an occlusion in the heart will "need" heart surgery to survive. Heart surgery is almost all cases is needed for survival. Abortion is not.

And by "demand", I think Whodey means "request" or "ask" not "compel" or "coerce". When Whodey he says he is against abortion on demand, I think he means he is against abortion that is procured merely on request - just as I get panadols on request.

Originally posted by amannion
So are you suggesting that abortion is not necessary?
I would guess that most women who go through with an abortion struggle with the idea but choose it becuaes they feel it is in fact necessary.

So are you suggesting that abortion is not necessary?

Not in most cases. But I am against abortion in principal, just as society is against murder and stealing in principal, yet can justify them when they are seen as necassary.

I would guess that most women who go through with an abortion struggle with the idea but choose it becuaes they feel it is in fact necessary.

But necassary for what? Their survival? Their careers? They social reputation?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think you are obscuring the different "needs" in these examples. A person with an occlusion in the heart will "need" heart surgery to survive. Heart surgery is almost all cases is needed for survival. Abortion is not.

And by "demand", I think Whodey means "request" or "ask" not "compel" or "coerce". When Whodey he says he is against abortion on demand ...[text shortened]... t abortion that is procured merely on request - just as I get panadols on request.

Of course that what he means, but the word "demand" is used for propaganda purposes to suggest women desiring the medical procedure of abortion are compelling someone else to do something. Since it is obviously an incorrect terminology, he should stop using it. Agreed?

It doesn't matter if a medical treatment is necessary for survival; plenty of medical procedures are unnecessary for survival but carried out routinely. In point of fact, a woman's chance of dying and/or having serious health complications is higher with a completed pregnancy than with an abortion. But that is somewhat besides the point.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So are you suggesting that abortion is not necessary?

Not in most cases. But I am against abortion in principal, just as society is against murder and stealing in principal, yet can justify them when they are seen as necassary.

I would guess that most women who go through with an abortion struggle with the idea but choose it becuaes they fe ...[text shortened]... necessary.

But necassary for what? Their survival? Their careers? They social reputation?[/b]

It's none of your business what they feel it is "necessary" for.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's none of your business what they feel it is "necessary" for.

nippy sweetie

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course that what he means, but the word "demand" is used for propaganda purposes to suggest women desiring the medical procedure of abortion are compelling someone else to do something. Since it is obviously an incorrect terminology, he should stop using it. Agreed?

It doesn't matter if a medical treatment is necessary for survival; plenty ...[text shortened]... er with a completed pregnancy than with an abortion. But that is somewhat besides the point.

Of course that what he means, but the word "demand" is used for propaganda purposes to suggest women desiring the medical procedure of abortion are compelling someone else to do something. Since it is obviously an incorrect terminology, he should stop using it. Agreed?

I never interpreted the word "demand" in your way of "compelling". Just as you might pay for a television on demand. "On demand" is an often used expression.

It doesn't matter if a medical treatment is necessary for survival; plenty of medical procedures are unnecessary for survival but carried out routinely. In point of fact, a woman's chance of dying and/or having serious health complications is higher with a completed pregnancy than with an abortion. But that is somewhat besides the point.

I attribute a certain significance to the life of a fetus and believe that making them expendable, things that can be destroyed at whim, only debases our attitude towards others.

And it was a bit propogandist for you to compare abortion as analogous to heart surgery.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's none of your business what they feel it is "necessary" for.

If we are weighing the positives an negatives of an abortion, then it is everyone's business.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Of course that what he means, but the word "demand" is used for propaganda purposes to suggest women desiring the medical procedure of abortion are compelling someone else to do something. Since it is obviously an incorrect terminology, he should stop using it. Agreed?

I never interpreted the word "demand" in your way of "compelling". Just as you d it was a bit propogandist for you to compare abortion as analogous to heart surgery.[/b]

Bull. It is NOT used in that manner to refer to any type of medical procedure, including "elective" ones (have you heard the term "face lift ON DEMAND"?). Guess you guys have to stick together though.

That wasn't an analogy, but a comparison. And you failed to meaningfully distinguish between the two anyway. Many, if not most, medical procedures are not for life threatening conditions, but are done at the request (DEMAND? LMAO!) of the patient for what the patient deems to be good and sufficient health reasons. Ditto abortion.

I believe that people have a right to self-autonomy over the confines of their own body and an attitude like yours debases this most basic Fundamental Right.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If we are weighing the positives an negatives of an abortion, then it is everyone's business.

According to that busybody type of reasoning, everything anywhere is "everyone's business". Where is it your concern to weigh the "positives and negatives of [someone else's] abortion"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Bull. It is NOT used in that manner to refer to any type of medical procedure, including "elective" ones (have you heard the term "face lift ON DEMAND"?). Guess you guys have to stick together though.

That wasn't an analogy, but a comparison. And you failed to meaningfully distinguish between the two anyway. Many, if not most, medical procedur ...[text shortened]... nes of their own body and an attitude like yours debases this most basic Fundamental Right.

No of course it isn't used to refer a medical procedure. That's because there is NO dictinction between the medical procedure of an abortion of a young girl not wanting a baby, and a woman who suffers from a high arithmea and would die from the heavy exertion of labour. "Abortion on demand" describes the motive of the abortion, not the type of abortion.

When I buy a meal from McDonalds I "pay on demand". That does not mean I compel them to give me my meal, it means that I pay when I request the meal. I think you would also have a hard time understanding the concept of "demand versus supply" in an economics class. Perhaps you might think of it as a humanist struggle against oppression. 😕

Now you were the one using propogandist language. By comparing abortion with heart surgery you play into people's dark fear of heart attacks. Abortion is a very different issue.

What does "self-autonomy over the confines of the own body" mean? Does that mean I can do anything with my body?

The fact is, is that what is moral is defined by its social outcomes. While I agree that we should not criminalise abortion, it should be minimized through active education. However, by promoting abortion as a "Fundamental Right" we pave the way for a social outcome where children are now suddenly expendable.

EDIT: And the fact is, if they intended to mean "demand" as in "compel", as opposed to "request", they would have said "abortion by demand". "Abortion by demand" implies that the abortion was obtained through compulsion of doctors. "Abortion on demand" rather indicates a time; that the abortion occured when there was a request.

Originally posted by no1marauder
According to that busybody type of reasoning, everything anywhere is "everyone's business". Where is it your concern to weigh the "positives and negatives of [someone else's] abortion"?

It's an ethical issue, surely in a democratic society these issues should be discussed?

Originally posted by Conrau K
No of course it isn't used to refer a medical procedure. That's because there is NO dictinction between the medical procedure of an abortion of a young girl not wanting a baby, and a woman who suffers from a high arithmea and would die from the heavy exertion of labour. "Abortion on demand" describes the motive of the abortion, not the type ates a time; that the abortion occured when there was[/i] a request.

Baloney. You are being disingenous and untruthful like most anti-abortionists. The phrase "abortion on demand" has absolutely nothing to do with economic supply and demand; you're being absurd. I never yet heard an abortionist use the phrase "abortion on request" which is what you are pretending they mean by using the words "abortion on demand".

This is propaganda (the "Slippery Slope" nonsense that Ivanhoe so oooooooooooo loves):

However, by promoting abortion as a "Fundamental Right" we pave the way for a social outcome where children are now suddenly expendable.

Comparing two medical procedures is not.

Self-autonomy over the confines of one's own body" does mean you are free to do anything with your own body (so long as it does not interfere with other's self-autonomy). It's called "freedom"' are you familar with that term? Sadly, there are many unreasonable restrictions on this Fundamental Right (Note I didn't say abortion itself was a Fundamental Right; your juxaposition is a common fallacious tactic), but adding yet another one is not justified by the existence of prior, unreasonable restrictions on freedom.

Originally posted by whodey
What about Congressmen swearing on a book that they hold to be sacred? Do you not think by doing so they are more likely to take such oaths more seiously? Perhaps atheists could swear on a book by Dawkins or Darwin.

I don't mind them choosing to swear on such a book. I just don't think they should be forced to. The Congressperson should provide their own book if they want one.

Dawkins and Darwin are not "sacred" to atheists.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

Dawkins and Darwin are not "sacred" to atheists.[/b]

I was joking of coarse.

LOL