"Blog for Choice"

On an email list that today suggests making a blog entry about women ought to have the final say-so on their reproductive choice decisions, instead of men. So, here is mine.

Are American women mere reproductive machines for the men powerful enough to acquire them and use them to crank out progeny for those males? Seems quite cave man-ish. I thought we had gotten more civilized.

On the other hand, a man may marry a woman with intent to reproduce his kind in harmony with her, as she with him in partnership. The man may invest all his earnings during the marriage, to share equally with her, with her part largely being to conceive, gestate, and do much of the raising of the children. But what if she accepts his employed earnings and other help yet does not want to have children with him? It seems to be an agreement thing to be resolved between them to the satisfaction of each, instead of something to be resolved by laws requiring women to carry every conception to term and spend much of their life raising the children.

The implication by the men is also that women ought not do lovemaking unless going to have children by the participating male. Especially when women's birth control use has been hindered by something. Yet throughout mankind's existence, women's huge capacity for lovemaking with men 24/7 has united mankind to make great achievements together, instead of the mammalian herd animal's mode of a few dominant males attack the other males and do all the reproduction fertilization.

Women need to be free, in aggregate, to make love with all the men, none left out, so as to maximize human resources for civilization productivity; and that means they need to have the means to control their reproduction in the rare instances they might get fertilized in the process, without that being the intent.