Not a straw man. You didn't really say what part you stood by. If the thing you're standing by isn't a justification in calling her a whore, then I'm simply mistaken about what that referred to. I mean. If you're standing by her apparent lack of math skills I have no disagreement there. Math is hard.
But if it's about the whore thing, you'd have to infer some thing from the photo that aren't apparent. What I can reasonably infer from the photo relevant to this discussion are:
* that she is obviously not in favor of the court's opinion, evidenced by the fact that she's there with a sign.
* she doesn't think it's anyone else's business, including the government's, if women get abortions.
* she is math challenged.
* she's not gonna **** that simp behind her no matter how much he signals his support for her.
Some things I don't think are reasonable to infer:
* that she's ever had an abortion. Supporting a right to abortion doesn't imply she's had one.
* that she's a whore. We don't know how she earns money. She may be rich from daddy's trust fund. We don't know if she's unmarried, or otherwise is having sex outside of marriage. There's no indication that she is married. Or is having an affair if she is.
* that she's irresponsible with sex. There's no indication from the photo that she doesn't use birth control, or that if she did get pregnant, that it wouldn't be intentional.
So if what you stand by is not calling her a whore because of that photo, then that's my mistake, not a strawman.