That doesn’t help. It just asserts that “oh no, it’s obviously not unlimited” but not how or why, in line with the core arguments used.
Did you read the article? Its whole point is that Roe is a dubious application of privacy, even if you support the ruling’s conclusion.
I assumed from your confident tone, and insistence that the parent comment was a strawman, that you would be able to shed more light on this topic. At least, that’s where I would be if I used that tone.
Did you read the article? Its whole point is that Roe is a dubious application of privacy, even if you support the ruling’s conclusion.
I assumed from your confident tone, and insistence that the parent comment was a strawman, that you would be able to shed more light on this topic. At least, that’s where I would be if I used that tone.