... from Dante? He comes up with these interesting, message-driven spellings.

At my age, they're all divorced (so they don't trust males and just exploit them) or old maids (so embittered against the world for their years of loneliness). Why would I want that?

Well said, but you didn't mention the part where I would be expected to have sexual relations with these older women. I would not want to see them naked. Since I am supposed to want a romantic relationship with these middle-aged ladies, I think that would constitute a problem for both me and her.

Because antis will already assume the worst. So why give them a head start by apologizing before anyone asks the question?

Because pre-emptively cutting them off at the pass prevents those who are "on the fence" about the issue, and interested in truly open-minded research, from likewise assuming the worst along with the antis. As I have noted many times before, our audience is not simply composed of 95% antis and roughly 5% pro-choicers. There is a decent sized chunk of on-the-fencers too, and they comprise a much bigger chunk than the pro-choicers. The fact that much, if not most, of them stay silent should not be mistaken for they're not being there.

If I did that, then I would look suspect. I'd rather let antis bring the poison to the well themselves, and then I will tell them that they brought poison.

The onus of the poison was on us, not them. By not bringing it up, you convinced me--a pro-choicer--that you may be bringing that poison to the table. Which means a huge amount of damage could be done to the on-the-fencers' perceptions of us.

Oh, and, from the very link I posted, Paul Joseph Watson had taken the anti spin on the story. It isn't like this news piece hadn't already been subjected to those questions.

Yes, and imagine how it looks when there is no one to counter the position that Watson takes. It creates the impression that his cause for concern may well be warranted since it received no challenge.