We did indeed. And I did articulate the centrist position - which is that the Government or the State has SOME power over the bodies of people.

There is no full body autonomy for either men and women. That's a misconception. The Government has a whole bunch of laws centred around bodily autonomy. Some examples include 'You cannot drink alcohol until you are 18/21" or 'It is illegal for you to put Heroin in your body" - this is because the Government balances up rights and social responsibilities and makes a judgment on those things. Every time I argue this position, you bombard me with questions about children being raped.

Where the bodily autonomy of one individual interferes with the rights of another - there are usually laws. Men may want to walk around with their genitals out, but they are prevented from doing so - apart from in particular settings. This s a common sense approach to restricting their rights to walk around undressed by the responsiibilty we have to children etc. Sometimes, if people don't take their medication, we restrict their right to liberty and we restrict their right to refuse the medication. We section them.

So the centrist position is 'bodily autonomy rights have to be examined on a case by case basis' in law and as part of a complicated social structure. It has nothing to do with being a man or a woman. You are painting a binary where one doesn't exist

The reason I asked you what you think about bodily autonomy rights is that you fail to answer the question every single time. If you support bodily autonomy rights at all costs, then you would be fine with legalising drugs, public nudity, and yes (as a result) very late term abortions. Where exactly do you draw the line - because you keep skirting around the question.