Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 53,204
- 15,945
I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.
All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.
So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble?
You've already told us that even if a woman is on no benefits nor receives any.....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Making all your 'public benefits' nonsense merely babble.
As even you don't give a shit about it. Which is convenient. As neither do I. Nor does the law.
Where did I say that?
Right here:
Conservative65 said:Since that won't happen or until it does, no. With her sole choice comes sole responsibility.Skylar said:So if someone is not on any public benefits, they should be able to choose their own reproductive freedom?
So no, you wouldn't acknowledge a woman's right to choose even if she wasn't on benefits. Making your entire argument irrelevant. As even you ignore you.
So you misrepresent what I said? Not surprised. If someone is not on benefits, I don't know what choices they make and can't say anything about what someone does if I don't know they are doing it.
Then a woman's right to choose is predicated on your knowledge of her existence?
Huh. Why would your knowledge of her existence be the determining factor of her rights?
And for those of us who don't give a fiddler's fuck about you and your 'knowledge of other people's existence', why would *we* predicate a woman's rights on your knowledge?