It's fascinating that women dying is a rounding error to you. I bet if you were the one pregnant, that wouldn't be the case. Men try so hard to control births, procreation, and women's bodies, yet they would treat it so much differently if it were about them. For instance, all men have to do these days is get vasectomies, which would be the simplest and smartest birth control method there is. But no, most immature boys have bruised egos and believe that undergoing a simple procedure, which would allow them to plan parenthood, would emasculate them. Why would they even consider doing that when women can take the risks, including ruining their bodies with birth control pills? And then, if a woman gets pregnant, she absolutely must give birth, because it’s not the man’s problem. This is essentially what your opinion boils down to. And I bet, you wouldn't want the government to forcibly complete such a procedure on you?
The reward of an abortion is not a dead baby. I don't think you understand how fetal development works. You also clearly don’t understand that there are many aspects to having children, with giving birth being the least important one. It takes a certain level of intelligence to comprehend the social and socio-economic aspects of childbearing—and a moral one too, involving a lot more intellect than the "dead baby" nonsense derived from being brainwashed by scammy religious institutions and other forms of ignorance.
Ah, yes, another example of how you don't care if women live or die. Sure, let’s use the fact that so many women have been dying from childbirth as a way to promote childbirth. This is an excellent example of why women should not have sex with men who don't care about their lives.
It has always occurred to women that childbirth was an unacceptable risk. Women were only given the ability to make decisions for themselves not so long ago. The higher the education people have, the more likely they are to form partnerships and have children later—and the fewer children they have. But it doesn’t seem like this is something you are capable of understanding. Instead, you attempt to use these thoughts to justify your views, which clearly show you don’t care whether women live or die. You see women as baby-making machines. Well, as per the stats I linked above, more and more women are getting smarter and refusing to have children. And judging by the trends, it's the anti-choice men they don't want to do it with. It’s sad they’ve been enduring this societal structure for centuries, but better late than never.
You’re contradicting yourself again. Women who don’t swear off sex won’t get married; most will remain single because the vast majority of men, regardless of their beliefs, disappear the moment they realize they won’t be getting laid. Your theory may have worked 50–100 years ago when women had no other way of surviving except marrying the first random man they’d never truly love because they couldn’t work or even have a bank account. Nowadays, with the progress, science, tech, Internet and many other advances, women making their own money, living happily on their own, and not rushing into relationships—while also observing how some men get more conservative and radicalized, as women grow more liberal and open-minded—there is no need to choose a random man for survival. Not to mention, marriage to an anti-choice man who doesn’t care about women’s bodies or lives is the worst decision any woman could make. If you saw the number of "my wife is divorcing me because I voted for Trump" posts in the last 2 weeks, you see what's happening. Marriage doesn’t particularly benefit women compared to men, and marrying a horrendous human being is even worse. Pro-choice women keep being happy and doing exactly what they want while staying safe and unburdened by barely-human partners who don’t deserve sex, let alone love or care. You are correct regarding abortions, though—there will be fewer of them, for all women, including the 88% of American women who support abortion in some form.
A sex strike will likely make pro-choice women happier. Or not, since many women, regardless of their views, know how to be happy and thrive while single. It’s lonely men who usually complain about being single, lying to themselves that it’s all because of "scary feminism" and not their horrible personalities, and then go and join incel groups, where they dwell on the loneliness epidemic. Yes, women like sex, but you’re forgetting that many men are really bad at it. Women are willing to overlook that if they are with good partners, and thank God some are—but not anti-choice, pro-death-to-women men. It’s funny how you’re trying to flip this, especially considering recent studies showing that single, childless, never-married women are the happiest—not to mention the divorce and cheating rates. I'm not your target audience, though. Sorry.
A pro-choice total sex strike means fewer unhappy women, more pro-choice women, and, guess what? Potentially higher birth rates. Why? Because more women are having children on their own, without men. All you need is biological material, and at least that material won’t impose violence on their lives or bodies, like forced pregnancies. Having children on one’s own terms has always been the smartest choice, and women increasingly realize there is no need for subpar partners and fathers anymore—apart from some women, who found genuinely good men.
