You really should be hired by the FBI to interrogate witnesses, given how brilliant we're supposed to assume you are at mind-reading.

Yet again, you fail to address the point.

If delay is a problem, you institute policies to facilitate rapid access and permission. If "medically necessary" is too restrictive, you make it broad.

You keep evading the central issue by bringing up conceptually easily-solved points. As a practical matter they may be difficult, but that doesn't change what the principles are.

You don't say, "Hey, sometimes you accuse the wrong person of murder--and it's happened and the wrong person has been sent to jail--therefore murder is okay."

(Also, reasoning from individual examples is often invalid--you don't say, "In this one weird case, wearing a seatbelt caused this person to die; therefore, we can't mandate seatbelt use.")

That is logically equivalent to the argumentation strategy you're using. Rather than first establishing core principles and then working diligently through complications, any time a core principle comes up you throw up concerns. It's not that the concerns aren't worth thinking about--they are--but you're using it to avoid exploring the principles involved.

You never address the core concern, except to dismiss it as saying that it never happens, which is false.

And then you spend most of the time ascribing unstated positions to Ololade and attacking those. Maybe you're right, maybe not, and again, it's just evading answering the only worthwhile point.

Why the incredible reluctance?

The core point is really easy to understand, though Ololade did a poor job of expressing it: there is very little difference physically between a just-pre-birth baby and a just-born baby (let's contrast a still-gestating 37 week old baby to a slightly premature baby born at 37 weeks). So why would it be perfectly okay to terminate one and perfectly not okay to terminate the other? There might be a good reason for this but you can only explain it if you directly address the core concern. Baby is fine, baby could survive outside the mother, mother wants an abortion anyway, and is heading to a clinic that will perform the procedure. All cool? Or not? Why?

You have been failing to answer this over and over and over. Do you not have any answer? Do you have an answer that is so monstrous you cannot bring yourself to speak it? Are you so committed to what you think standard talking-points of your side must be (whatever "your side" is) that you cannot say anything else? It's almost comical.

Just answer the question already!