> That same logic applies to women then, no?

How ?

By not having sex (where a guy cums inside them) if they don't want a baby.

By your logic, this solves all the problems, and we only need abortions in case of rape or medical issues with a wanted child.

But we both know that people will still have sex, create unwanted babies (well, still fetuses), and both people involved should have a right to get out of unwanted responsibilities.

> By not having sex (where a guy cums inside them) if they don't want a baby.

Do we want more sex ? Yes

Do we want less babies ? Yes

Both are doable

Women don’t need the guy to cum inside for pleasure - that’s the only thing that leads to babies.

Guys have total control here:

- pull out

- wear a condom (or two)

Ejaculation is what, 5-10 seconds of pleasure - you are going to create a baby for that ?

Seems the juice is not worth the squeeze here

Edit: formatting

If women let guys cum inside them without a condom, they share the same responsibility as the guy.

Pulling out doesn't work in many cases, and two condoms are dangerous (i have no idea why you are spreading the two-condom idea, it increases the chances of ripping).

So yeah, if women don't want kids, don't let guys cum inside them (rape excluded) so by your logic, they don't need abortions (except for rape and medical reasons), right?