How about pinging someone if you are going to quote them, is that too much to expect.
Did you or did you not write this:
If Roe vs Wade were overturned, it would be a finding that there WAS no natural right to an abortion, and thus States could pass laws against it.
That is advocating a policy where each state gets to decide on abortion.
If Roe v Wade were overturned it would be up to the States to either pass anti-abortion measures or not. Pointing that out doesn't mean that I support such a reality, let alone that I would support States continuing to allow abortion.
It is just pointing out reality.
Amazing to me that someone directly arguing that the decisions that struck down anti-contraception laws is somehow in no way shape or form an endorsement that the law should be changed - and yet I point out the reality that if Roe were struck down the decision would be up to the States - and suddenly I am endorsing a that States continue to allow abortion!
Cognitive dissonance much?
Amazing to me that someone directly arguing that the decisions that struck down anti-contraception laws WERE WRONG is somehow in no way shape or form an endorsement that the law should be changed - and yet I point out the reality that if Roe were struck down the decision would be up to the States - and suddenly I am endorsing a that States continue to allow abortion!
Cognitive dissonance much?