The context had become muddled due to the extremely long multi-quote posts and flaming at that point. Thank you for clearing this up and it appears we have some agreement, here. I do not believe a woman should be required to endanger her life in order to give birth, either. I pointed this out in the analogy you quoted about being a solider. You cannot assume that the context was clear, several readers read- where each of three of you all said the same words when repeatedly asked directly if it was human and you were not asked in the context "if the mothers life was in danger." You must have assumed that was the context, at that point. Additionally, you later clarify your position on abortion which I have said was your position all along- That a mothers life in danger is irrelevant- you believe she has the right to kill another out of a whim or want, not a self defensive measure. Will return to this. Spoiler Agreed, yet he termed it a 'textbook example of intellectual dishonesty' while wording it as "Neverfly was mangling the English Language." It's amazing how one can accuse another of being misleading while lying his ass off. I also agreed with this, repeatedly, which not only was ignored, but used by Tiassa to declare me a misogynist. No bias at work, there... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, clarity is much easier to attain when you do no flame, throw around ad homs like a badly behaving mere member instead of a Moderator. You're behavior throughout has been hostile and condescending and it creates confusion, defensiveness and defies clarity. Complaining after the fact if you were misunderstood is not the problem of those on the receiving end of your tirades. It was your presentation at fault. I'm leaving this one outside of spoiler tags. Who was expected to disregard most of your words (Sneering ad hom attacks) while giving merit to the few words (Valid arguments)?