I have already done so, to Tiassa. There are several outcomes. Most likely is complete legal rights and protections with respect of the protection of the late term fetus. And? Next time you want to just discuss the OP, maybe you shouldn't drag my comments in (post #4). Then again, that was Tiassa, so maybe he just decided to play you for a sucker. Then you confirm your actual belief in DF as the sole limiter, despite your claim I misrepresented you; abortion at any time. And that means that all your shrieks about misrepresentation are lies; sadly, your stance was exactly the most cynical possibility on the table. I've given you numerous opportunities to refute this impression. You have not. (Edit: until below, apparently?) You have linked articles describing the medical needs for termination, or of obstacles - legal and extralegal - which have impeded abortion. Neither of these categories has a single thing to do with my proposition and as a justification for DF they fall short. It's as though, in picking them, you seem to believe that the present default legal stance is of DF, rather than restrictions on LTA. (I assure you, the latter is correct.) The inference I take away from them is that you think because violations exist, the mother's prerogative must be absolute. That's a ridiculous conclusion, and an unnecessary response. If a law is being violated, only an absolutist response will work to preserve women's rights? Please. I've asked this already earlier, and several times earlier still in different form: what do you mean by more restrictions? Compare my proposition to current restrictions by date. You do understand that currently abortion does have some restrictions, subject to medical mitigation? Do you understand this? Because it's as though you don't realise that abortion, as of right this second, all over the world, does have limitations on dates for abortion, mitigated by medical considerations. So how exactly does my proposition introduce more limitations? You realise also that I'm suggesting it as a replacement for current law? Is that the part that's throwing you off? You're referring to your selected case studies? Then no, this they do not do. They're simply examples of the necessity of medical intervention for LTA. ?? A pea? Weird. Now: where? I get that this question is among the difficult ones I'm posing to you now, but where is this so? And against what circumstances? You yourself made the case above, Bells: no slander here. Still, I thought you'd go back on it, and you did. So, once again: at what date do you think abortion rights should end, barring medical necessity? Come on, I've asked this many times already and you keep changing your mind, sometimes in the same post. It's not a hard question. ... actually, I think I'll stick to reality, and cite the nearly innumerable logical fallacies you've been wallowing in, besides the general trolling. By "discussed among the staff", I assume you mean your supporter therein again. This is another old thing of yours, where you imply vast support where it doesn't exist. So here's the chance for everyone to have their say: if there are any staff members that have a problem with my discussion on this thread other than Bells and Tiassa, I invite them to write me via PM, or simply post on the thread itself if they'd rather keep such an exchange private. I have no wish to disrupt the forum, and while this is almost certainly just another case of weasel language, I'm happy for those staff who disagree to make their views known to me. Admins, mods, superadmins all. Write me; tell me where I've done this thread wrong. Excuse me: why would I be required to illustrate that women already are abusing them? Frankly, that list does indicate several areas that don't sound completely ethical to me. But again, specify: what stage of LTA? Well, I just did. This is an issue that runs through numerous posts of yours. You have this thing where you accuse the other person of "making it all about themselves". Yet Tiassa himself dragged in my comments in post #4. It's kind of an "You're trying to make this all about you, when all I'm trying to do is use your opinion in an illegitimate way to prop up my straw man! How dare you!" sort of thing. It leads one to ask: is this projection? It keeps coming back. Oh, do they? Very well: which ones are these that - and these are your words, mind - "deal directly with the biologically determined limitation to abortion rights"? Again, you realize that implicit in "biological determination" are the words "rational" and "justifiable". So now these links of yours contain some kind of rational biological limit? I would very much like to see them. Please post them. Thanks. That means one, and that means Tiassa, yes. I give you also maybe Fraggle: he had a strong opinion on abortion in general, I recall, but said nothing about my proposition. It's actually not offensive in any way - unless you're pushing DF (or in your case, DF/not DF/DF/not DF/DF/not DF). Several things here: then you need to stop equivocating my position to PAF. Further, you need to stop pretending that the central issue of this thread hasn't already been addressed - this herring has gone on for 17 pages now, as you correctly point out. And if you're seeking moderation on this, I will seek administration on the moderation, because this is not trolling, and it is certainly not the kind of reprehensible, unethical character assassination that you engage in for lack of something rational to say in support of your bizarre agenda. Night night! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!