Of course he should. But that's not what you said. You said you agreed with restrictions because the risk of abortion at that point was roughly the same as normal chilbirth. Your scenario did NOT involve a physician facing the choice of performing a procedure more dangerous than NOT doing it. Moreover, your subsequent statement about not minding if all restrictions were removed indicates that your supposed concern over a physician's dilemma over medical risk was an outright sham.Medical risks are a real issue. I think a doctor should refuse to do a procedure if the results could be much more dangerous than NOT doing it.
You favor a woman's right to personal risk assessment and the right to choose to abort at ANY time. You've said so.
So there is absolutely no reason for you to agree with any restrictions for ANY reason. A woman at any time would always have the choice to not abort given her assessment of the risks involved.
You're a phony. And you facked ap. And you're STILL squirming to avoid admitting it.
Sorry, stupid. You were wrong. The definition of clairvoyance I provided indicates it is a form of extrasensory perception or the the alleged power of perceiving things ( past, present or future ) beyond the natural range of the senses. That would defintely include the ability to perceive what the other poster was thinking.Your definition of clairvoyance involves knowledge unknown to others, but the original post referred to knowing what other people know. Not the same thing, moron.
Your attempt to define it as ONLY the ability to see things that are currently happening at another location, was laughably incorrect.