Questions, questions Incredible fact, isn't it? I have easily as much personality as you have a corporeal home life, I would guess. The factual one will do, thank you. Well, you keep going back and forth, you see: DF is a real deadline, DF isn't, a rhetorical construct is a (reified) turdurcken, then it isn't. I'm not sure you yourself know what it is you're meant to be discussing; that or you're engaging in wide intellectual dishonesty by pretending it's one or the other. Why don't you start with something we're all forced to start with, which is a premise, and go from there? And then, instead of throwing a tantrum because the critics won't subscribe to your narrow conception of the argument, we could actually discuss it? And then you wouldn't have to go bomb-throwing, invoking Geoff like a demon on a Free Souls Day in August - or creating bizarre and unrealistic counters to extremist pro-life sentiments which you rightfully despise. Can you possibly be serious? See below. Honesty; fair debate; intellectual obligation; the list goes on. Still, all that does have what you and Tiassa might call a subjective moral basis. Is that why you two are so deep into denial here? Is this more pretension along a different axis? I will explain your bodyguard's OP precept and succeeding and preceding philosophy to you, his mindless devotee, once again. You will not, however, pretend yet again that you really don't know what's being discussed here. Tiassa's proposition is that personhood assigned during fertilisation is coming and is dangerous. "In assigning personhood to any preborn human organism, one invokes the equal protection conflict that arises when one "person" exists inside another," he spouts. Based on his other work, we are meant to conclude that only DF will save women. The ethical importance of killing unborn fetuses is nil, because, he asserts, one cannot know whether a baby exists until one can see a baby (which ranges well beyond the most absurd of pleas to hysterical mysticism) and/or because he adheres to a kind of freakish new Republicanism in which "stand your womb" is the clearest and brightest of all precepts. (Please keep in mind that some of this is indeed a little hyperbolic; however, it's also a very comedic description of a very poorly conceived idea.) The 'Publicans is a-coming, he cries, and so we must choose between PAF on the one hand, or FAP sliding inevitably towards PAF, and DF, which equivocates to the absolute right of the woman to choose abortion, which he seems to think runs up to birth and which you sometimes claim doesn't. Now, no one supports the pro-lifer position on PAF, because it's ridiculous - I suspect this is an implicit appreciation of the biological realities underlying development. I just want to highlight this part: do you understand this? Because it's important. You and Tiassa keep clinging to the OP as if it were some kind of lifeboat or really, really magic straw while shrieking "answer the OP! don't have a go at the derivation of our concepts or their underlying issues or how our argument has developed or the false equivocations we've been making! just answer the OP!" Well, if you hadn't noticed, we've already addressed the OP. Many, many, many times. We have discussed it from realistic and rhetorical and philosophical and logical perspectives, but neither one of you take notice because that would, you know, fuck up your unrealistic agenda. Clearly the pro-life proposition is not realistic or ethical, and must be strongly opposed. And, clearly, DF is is not realistic or ethical and must be strongly opposed, as a real deadline or even an arguing point, because it's simply ridiculous. Is it that you propose that as a devil-advocate counter to take on the forces of pro-lifedom, which seemingly do not exist on SF? Then why such protectionism? Why do you incorporate it in your argument? Why does every proposition of a more intermediate - which is not "centrist" - deadline provoke such expressions of rage in your responses? Why does Tiassa attempt to tack my proposition of a reasoned biological deadline up beside PAF/FAP in post #4, and then proclaim that the selection of any point other than DF demands personhood, being again no different to PAF/FAP. This is ridiculous. Can you locate any personhood provisions in current legislation on abortion? No? Then in what possible sense is anyone obligated to take up the proposition of personhood, either as law stands now or in any modification of same along (I egotistically propose; which is the first actual instance of this in the discussion) a biological guideline. I mean, it's sort of blatantly obvious what you're trying to do here, which is why you just avoid and avoid and avoid; this is followed up with the most ridiculous assertions about ego, then bouts of avoidance, false dilemma, false equivocation, reification, and on and on. We've seen several major and at least one fairly esoteric logical fallacy paraded around the thread (and at least one other); I think it's entirely possible that as you circle the argument you might trip over all of them. I await the next fallacy in all eagerness. I suppose you'll just pretend this is more obfuscation, but if that's going to the sum of your next post, please just post it to here: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think such a response would better serve public interest as passive intellectual fertiliser than in being thrown as a weapon.