Oh for gods sake Eve - just actually read the damn article because you're making a tit of yourself. If you actually READ the article, you will see that I've EXPLAINED why Roe was a bad piece of law - I didn't advocate for it to be overturned. I went into the legal reasons why it was a POOR choice to argue under the 14th Amendment and how that left wiggle room for the Supreme Court justices on the political right. I explained exactly why Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and I were in agreement that there were better cases to make with stronger arguments that could not be overturned. Once again, go and read the Susan Struck vs Air Force case and see for yourself. I would prefer Roe v Wade not to be overturned, but the reality is that the law which underpins it is shoddy. I'm sorry you're unable to differentiate my legal position from a supposed moral judgment, they are two different hings.

I said abortion should be limited in line with the scientific consensus. That's the argument here in the UK, 24 weeks. After 24 weeks the foetus has above 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb.... which means, to my mind at least, that AFTER 24 WEEKS of pregnancy you're dealing with two potential lives and not one. That is the current thinking in the UK. If you want to retain the right to abort a healthy baby 2 days before its due date then go ahead - I won't support you and neither will the British legal system.

Your complete insistence on binary and polemic thinking is frankly tiring. You hear what you want to hear and you go off on tangents insisting things that aren't true. My brand is someone who will engage in meaningful debate and good faith discussion - and to be entirely honest, you're starting to force me off brand.