he never said it is not about her body. he never, ever dismissed her entire involvement. how remarkably deceitful of you to claim so.<quoted text>
A man pays nothing during pregnancy, the woman carries the entire medical/physical and financial burden. If birth takes place then the state requires financial support from BOTH parties. The woman ends up with the heavier burden of finances and HER time involved raising the child. EVERY woman I know who is a single mom or divorced receives minimal if any support from the father, nor are the fathers spending EQUAL time raising their kids. So please, spare me the he-man boast until you manage to get all your "brothers" in line. What you do as an individual is exactly that. However you do not treat women as individuals if you if you wish to limit choice and reduce them to baby factories for the "state". I am sure the south thought slavery was for the betterment of the state and society.
As your analogy that women must produce against their best interests with no benefit to themselves is ridiculous to me.
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence:
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.
Yes, amusing that you as a man would contend that it is NOT about her body. The fact that you dismiss her entire involvement in the process amuses me,
he only said it is about more than "just" her body, and that it was "also" about a living, developing human fetus.
the fact that you feel the need to lie in an attempt to make your point indicates a real lack of confidence and belief in your position.