Swearing an oath on the Quran

Originally posted by no1marauder
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".

...[text shortened]... ot justified by the existence of prior, unreasonable restrictions on freedom.

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".

As I explained, "demand" has more than one meaning. One can "pay on demand", there is "demand versus supply" and demand can also mean compel. The latter definition you seem to be fixated on. Abortion on demand does not have any connotations of compulsion. Of it did, the expression would be, "abortion by demand".

And no, and abortionist would never use the expression "abortion on request" because there is no medical difference between an abortion on demand, to an abortion after demand. Anti-abortionists created this distinction to describe those who can receive an abortion without informed counselling.

I did not use the slippery slope argument per se. I do not believe that by promoting abortion at three months, we will eventually be permitting abortion at 4 months, then 5 months, and so on. But rather that our attitude towards fetuses will change. Their existence is purely at a convenient time for the parent. This makes them expendable.

Comparing two medical procedures is not.

There are no "two medical procedures".

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).

I think it sad that the self-autonomy of the fetus isn't even considered.

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.

I seriously thought that you were saying that abortion is part of our Fundamental Right. If it isn't though, why do you mention it?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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".

f our Fundamental Right. If it isn't though, why do you mention it?[/b]

Your last paragraph shows you can't read. You have my pity.

Do you think it's "sad" that the self-autonomy of a tapeworm or germs that cause bad breath isn't even considered?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your last paragraph shows you can't read. You have my pity.

Do you think it's "sad" that the self-autonomy of a tapeworm or germs that cause bad breath isn't even considered?

I did in fact have trouble understanding what you were trying to convey here:

Sadly, there are many unreasonable restrictions on this Fundamental Right but adding yet another one is not justified by the existence of prior, unreasonable restrictions on freedom.

If abortion is not part of the Fundamental Right, then what is the restriction of freedom you are referring to?

Do you think it's "sad" that the self-autonomy of a tapeworm or germs that cause bad breath isn't even considered?

This is just purposeless rhetoric. Obviously I attribute greater significance to a fetus than to tapeworms and germs that cause bad breath. You on the otherand have not provided nay reason to identify fetuses with tapeworms and the like.

I'm glad you have realized that you were just plain wrong in your accusation that the expression "abortion on demand" is propogandist language.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I did in fact have trouble understanding what you were trying to convey here:

[b]Sadly, there are many unreasonable restrictions on this Fundamental Right but adding yet another one is not justified by the existence of prior, unreasonable restrictions on freedom.

If abortion is not part of the Fundamental Right, then what is the restriction of f ong in your accusation that the expression "abortion on demand" is propogandist language.[/b]

I wasn't conceding any such thing; but it's obviously pointless to keep arguing about the phrase "abortion on demand" with someone who has been as well indoctrinated and brainwashed as you obviously have been. "Abortion on demand" in a propaganda phrase; that you can't see that is your own problem.

Abortion is PART of the Fundamental Right to self-autonomy, but it is not a Fundamental Right in and of itself. What is sooooooooooooooo hard to understand about that?

A fetus that a woman wants to remove from the confines of her body is in an identical position to a tapeworm and the germs that cause bad breath. She can remove it if she so chooses.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wasn't conceding any such thing; but it's obviously pointless to keep arguing about the phrase "abortion on demand" with someone who has been as well indoctrinated and brainwashed as you obviously have been. "Abortion on demand" in a propaganda phrase; that you can't see that is your own problem.

Abortion is PART of the Fundamental Right to s ...[text shortened]... n to a tapeworm and the germs that cause bad breath. She can remove it if she so chooses.

I wasn't conceding any such thing; but it's obviously pointless to keep arguing about the phrase "abortion on demand" with someone who has been as well indoctrinated and brainwashed as you obviously have been. "Abortion on demand" in a propaganda phrase; that you can't see that is your own problem.

Well with that stance you might as well "demand versus supply" as a propoganda phrase economists use describing the humanist's struggle against oppression; that "paying on demand" is theft. As I said before if anti-abortionist's really wanted to imply "compel" when they said "demand", they would have said "abortion by demand".

Perhaps you can propose an alternative expression that refers to abortions peformed when the woman asks for one; without questions asked or counselling provided.

Abortion is PART of the Fundamental Right to self-autonomy, but it is not a Fundamental Right in and of itself. What is sooooooooooooooo hard to understand about that?

Twice I asked you if abortion PART of the Fundamental Right (you yourself never said that it was). Your reply was that I couldn't read. If anything it is you that is having difficulty understanding things.

A fetus that a woman wants to remove from the confines of her body is in an identical position to a tapeworm and the germs that cause bad breath. She can remove it if she so chooses.

I suppose that unlike you, I recognize the fetus as a human being. Of course she can remove it if she chooses. Whether or not she should remove it is the difference between us.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I wasn't conceding any such thing; but it's obviously pointless to keep arguing about the phrase "abortion on demand" with someone who has been as well indoctrinated and brainwashed as you obviously have been. "Abortion on demand" in a propaganda phrase; that you can't see that is your own problem.

Well with that stance you might as well "demand v es. Whether or not she should remove it is the difference between us.[/b]

What, my boy, is the difference between "demanding" something and "asking" for it? None apparently to you. Your little tirade is tiresome; anti-abortionists use the term "demand" not to refer to any type of economic argument but to imply unreasonableness. And unless you're a complete fool, you know this.

YOU described my position as stating abortion itself is a Fundamental Right. When corrected, you showed an ability to grasp the distinction between something that is an aspect of a Fundamental Right and the Fundamental Right itself.

Again it's none of your business if she removes a fetus or a tapeworm or uses Listerine to get rid of the germs that cause bad breath. Can't you just find a fence and gossip about something else with the other Gladys Kravitzs of the world?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What, my boy, is the difference between "demanding" something and "asking" for it? None apparently to you. Your little tirade is tiresome; anti-abortionists use the term "demand" not to refer to any type of economic argument but to imply unreasonableness. And unless you're a complete fool, you know this.

YOU described my position as stating abo ...[text shortened]... nd a fence and gossip about something else with the other Gladys Kravitzs of the world?

Of course there is a difference between "demanding" and "asking". However, there is no difference in the context of "abortion on demand" or "abortion on request" or "abortion when asked". Since you have made no attempt to refute any of my arguments on this subject, expect by misrepresenting them, only convinces me that you just don't like being wrong.


YOU described my position as stating abortion itself is a Fundamental Right.

Yes, and then I corrected myself. I then asked if you meant that abortion is part of the Fundamental Right (you had never stated this). You didn't answer that but rather oppugned my ability to read.

When corrected, you showed an ability to grasp the distinction between something that is an aspect of a Fundamental Right and the Fundamental Right itself.

No, you failed to justify as to why abortion is part of the Fundamental Right. To me, whether abortion is, or is part of, this supposed Fundamental Right is irrelevant.

Again it's none of your business if she removes a fetus or a tapeworm or uses Listerine to get rid of the germs that cause bad breath.

To me, the statement that 'it is none of my business if a woman removes her fetus', it tantamount to, 'it none of my business if she kills her born son, or her husband, or her best-friend'. As I said, I recognize the fetus as a human being, not as a tapeworm.

Originally posted by Conrau K

As I said, I recognize the fetus as a human being, not as a tapeworm.

Is the fact that many people don't recognize a fetus as being sentient that which causes you to feel kinship with it?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Of course there is a difference between "demanding" and "asking". However, there is no difference in the context of "abortion on demand" or "abortion on request" or "abortion when asked". Since you have made no attempt to refute any of my arguments on this subject, expect by misrepresenting them, only convinces me that you just don't like being wrong.


...[text shortened]... -friend'. As I said, I recognize the fetus as a human being, not as a tapeworm.

How exactly does one "refute" someone who just blathers out the same idiotic statement? You've made no "argument" at all.

All you do is make assertions without support; there's no "arguing" with that. YOU say "abortion on demand" means something that the people who use it don't mean at all. YOU say no one has Fundamental Rights or that they are "irrelevant". YOU say that a fetus is a human being or that it's somehow different in a meaningful way from a tapeworm.

But you don't support any of these assertions with any facts or logical arguments. Since I don't bother to argue with a parrot, there's no sense responding to your posts which have the same intellectual content as "Polly want a cracker".

Originally posted by no1marauder
How exactly does one "refute" someone who just blathers out the same idiotic statement? You've made no "argument" at all.

All you do is make assertions without support; there's no "arguing" with that. YOU say "abortion on demand" means something that the people who use it don't mean at all. YOU say no one has Fundamental Rights or that they are ...[text shortened]... our posts which have the same intellectual content as "Polly want a cracker".

You accuse me of parroting and making assertions? Well, that's rather hypocritical of you.

Here were my arguments about the term "abortion on demand"

- The word "demand" has several meanings. It can mean 'to ask", "to request" or to "compel". It does not necassarily mean "to compel"
- If they had intended to mean that the woman compelled the doctor for an aboriton (as you seemed to think), then it would have read "abortion by demand".

These are two definitions of "abortion on demand":
1. the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy.
2. an abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request.
from http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0303695.html
Notice how there is no insinuation of compulsion. And the authors of this term could not have intended any connotation of "compulsion" because it would have obscured the original meaning.

These are arguments. They are theoretically refutable. Yet you have made no attempt to refute them, and then have the temerity to assert that they're not really arguments.

Also these definitions do not conflict with what I have been describing, as you claim here:

YOU say "abortion on demand" means something that the people who use it don't mean at all.

It is in fact you who seems determined to apply a meaning to the term that has no relation to what the people who use it mean.

YOU say that a fetus is a human being or that it's somehow different in a meaningful way from a tapeworm.

Yes, by the mere fact that it is genetically human and has the potential to become a sentient being.

you don't support any of these assertions with any facts or logical arguments. Since I don't bother to argue with a parrot, there's no sense responding to your posts which have the same intellectual content as "Polly want a cracker".

Yet amazingly, it is you has only constructed an entirely different meaning to "abortion on demand", it is you who has not supported his reasoning for why a fetus is comparable to a tapeworm with any evidence, and it is you who relies on rhetoric and invective to convince yourself of their own intellectual merit.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You accuse me of parroting and making assertions? Well, that's rather hypocritical of you.

Here were my arguments about the term "abortion on demand"

- The word "demand" has several meanings. It can mean 'to ask", "to request" or to "compel". It does not necassarily mean "to compel"
- If they had intended to mean that the woman compelled the doctor ...[text shortened]... d invective to convince yourself of their own intellectual merit.

Demand definitely does not mean the same thing as ask or request, but has a much more negative connotation, as you well know. Otherwise why not use "abortion on request"? Doesn't sound as bad, does it?

Originally posted by whiterose
Demand definitely does not mean the same thing as ask or request, but has a much more negative connotation, as you well know. Otherwise why not use "abortion on request"? Doesn't sound as bad, does it?

It does have a negative connation. I am not disputing that. A request is polite, while a demand seems to be irascible. But that's beside the point. no1marauder reasons that it implies that women are compelling doctors against their will to perform abortions. He attributes a completely different meaning the term "abortion on demand".

Originally posted by Conrau K
It does have a negative connation. I am not disputing that. A request is polite, while a demand seems to be irascible. But that's beside the point. no1marauder reasons that it implies that women are compelling doctors against their will to perform abortions. He attributes a completely different meaning the term "abortion on demand".

No, you yourself admitted that it can mean compel. Therefore, no1marauder has is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, which also seems likely considering you freely admit that you use the word for its negative connotation.

Originally posted by whiterose
No, you yourself admitted that it can mean compel. Therefore, no1marauder has is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, which also seems likely considering you freely admit that you use the word for its negative connotation.

The word "demand" can imply "compel". But in the expression "abortion on demand", compulsion is not implied. It would only be implied if it was rather "abortion by demand". The negative connotation is that it portrays the woman as irascible. It says nothing of the disposition of the doctor (as no1marauder said).

Anti-abortionists use the term "abortion on demand" in order to distinguish what they see as necassary abortions from unnecassary abortions. It is perfectly legitimate. "Abortion on request" also has negative connotations too.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The word "demand" can imply "compel". But in the expression "abortion on demand", compulsion is not implied. It would only be implied if it was rather "abortion by demand". The negative connotation is that it portrays the woman as irascible. It says nothing of the disposition of the doctor (as no1marauder said).

Anti-abortionists use the term "abortion ...[text shortened]... t is perfectly legitimate. "Abortion on request" also has negative connotations too.

How is "abortion on demand" a perfectly legitimate term? It is an iflammatory term used with no actual purpose but to put down women. Also, it definitely does not distinguish between "necessary" and "unneccecary" abortions, as you have used the term many times but I have yet to understand what you think that difference is.