No, but one does get to decide what another has said, and what the necessary consequences are.
(Aside--I did offer to ask the people what they meant, an offer which, I note, you did not take me up on.)
If I say, "the sky is green," and you are all, "No, you're wrong, it's blue, and right now it's actually blue and gray because there are some gray clouds in the sky," I can't just say, "Stop foisting your preconceptions on me and blaming me--you just clarified exactly what I meant all along." No: when I say "the sky is green" that means that the sky is green. If I intended something else, the error was not yours in interpretation but mine in production of communication, because what "the sky" means and what "is green" means are very well-established conventions.
If someone is complaining about driving-right-of-way extremists, and in reply I say, "When I'm driving and I have right of way, that's all that matters. I always drive on when I have right of way. Nothing else matters, ever. At all. Period," then you are absolutely correct to say, with considerable horror, "But that means you think it's okay to drive right into pedestrians who aren't crossing in a crosswalk!" That is a correct interpretation of my stated position. If I actually meant something else, the fault is mine...but I probably didn't mean something else because I had plenty of chances to leave room for a nuanced interpretation, and I used language in the way one does when one specifically wants to rule that out. I can't just tell you, "You needed to ask me for clarification, not just jump to conclusions."
Communication works through a shared standard--communication requires a shared standard--of what things mean. Furthermore, you can conclude things given premises. This is a good part of what "thinking" is (and why I asked you to employ it).
For instance, if someone says, "I think individuals' wealth should be capped at $10M per person. We should take the rest away and use it to fund government programs." then I would be correct in concluding, "So you want to take away Jeff Bezos' hundred-plus-billion dollars and use it to fund government programs." They can't go, "OMG no I never said THAT, don't jump to conclusions!" That is their stated position, whether they want it to be or not. If they want to have a different stated position, they need to state something else.
Dancova explicitly mentioned the extreme positions in his original post (emphasis mine):
"The majority of women (55%) and of men (58%) believe that “how long a woman has been pregnant” should be a factor in whether an abortion is legal or not. I assume this means that they would support bans on late term abortions.
Determining how many Americans are “pro-choice” depends on how you define pro-choice. This distinction is lost (or intentionally confused) by the extremes."
Now, did you say, "Actually, everyone supports a ban on late term abortions except for those that are medically necessary"? Noooo. Instead you attacked him for not grouping the "no restrictions" with the "in most cases" people. Intentionally losing/confusing the distinction.
But there you are actually doing what you're accusing me of doing: you are deciding for the "no restrictions" people what they mean. You insist on their behalf that they are perfectly fine with the pre-Dobbs viability restrictions.
You do keep telling me things (maybe even "5 or 6 different times") that I ignore because you keep making statements that contradict evidence and reason. Talk is cheap, they say. Show, don't tell, they say. If you want me to believe that "with no restrictions" means "with limited restrictions that rarely come up in practice anyway", you can't just say over and over and over again that this is your belief. Yes, I very much believe that you believe this. That's super-clear now. I have no idea why your bodily autonomy goes away in the third trimester in accord with established legal and medical precedent, but whatever! That's your business to work out in your own head. But when you claim that other people maintain the same cognitive dissonance (or have reasoning that you haven't supplied that makes this a non-dissonant position), that requires some evidence.
For instance, in this poll :https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/, there were options about restrictions: "legal, no exceptions" vs "legal in some cases but stage of pregnancy matters". Why on earth would you answer "no exceptions" when your actual position is "stage matters: third trimester is not okay by default"? When you have a position that exactly describes your point of view, why would you pick the more extreme one that doesn't?
In this poll: https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx, respondents were specifically asked whether abortion should be illegal in the third trimester for in different cases. 20% of people say that abortion should be legal in the third trimester when "the woman does not want the child for any reason". How on earth is this consistent with your statements over and over and over again--yes, you keep telling me--that nobody supports the legality of abortion of viable (i.e. 3rd trimester--this does basically mark the boundary between viability and not) fetuses?
Saying something five or six times doesn't make it true, and it shouldn't (even though it occasionally does) convince someone else that it's true. For it to be true, it needs to correspond to reality, and to convince someone else, you should demonstrate the correspondence.
And again, the reason it is important to get this right is that when you need support from moderates on any issue, they worry about supporting what they view as extremism. Telling them "extremism doesn't exist" only demonstrates even more virulent extremism if they've seen extremist positions themselves (and they probably have, since the anti-abortion side knows full well that extremism is offputting so they'll try to gather and present such stuff if they can find it; the fallback position of simply lying about it is considerably less effective). That robs support from legislation that would help protect 99%+ of abortions, which is a terrible strategy even aside from any genuine concern that maybe when unborn babies are viable we should treat them more like people and less like impositions on women's bodily autonomy and nothing more.