Surely the fact that a man who prioritises his own needs as the primary needs, would not be able to either consider the implications, nor even empathise to the needs of others, would tend to suggest that the well-being of others would be very low down the chain of priorities. Whatever my shortcomings and defects, at least I can categorically state that I have not behaved that way in such a situation or something comparable.

On the topic of men not being more muscular in their support of pro-Choice, could it possibly be connected to the fact that most men who have some awareness of the issue, feel they should other than offering tacit support and allyship, remain silent on a topic of which the greater onus is inevitability, borne by women alone, so that they would feel as though they are interloping on something that superficially, seems none of their business. Given the interconnectedness you illustrate in your article, of course men should take a healthy and supportive interest, though of course, not espouse the inconsiderate views of the distant, aloof and, condescending rich White, ‘Christian’, Republican males.

Long and short is that perhaps many well-meaning men support pro-Choice, but feel they need to keep quiet and not male-appropriate an issue that falls unfairly, as it happens, squarely upon women. Call them to arms, and many, many men of good will should hopefully make their support vocal and prominent.