“Women need unrestricted reproductive sovereignty in order to be free”.
Here is where your argument falls flat, there are no restrictions placed on a woman’s reproductive organs, at least not here in the U.S. A woman is free to do just about anything with her organs, a doctor might advise against it but short of self harm she is free to do with her body as she wishes.
But that is nt what you are talking about is it, you are not talking about the sovereign territory of the woman’s own body, instead you are talking about the product of the reproductive process, a process that for the most part requires the participation of both a man and a woman. Therefore it is not quite your sovereign body but the sum of two additive wholes. leaving the whole moral and religious argument to the side, there is a whole slew of other considerations, at least here in the U.S. We have already settled the debate of sovereign territory it does not exists, while the woman may posses the product of the union, she could not have conceived the product without the cooperation in some form of the male. So first off the bat does possession imply ownership? In the U.S. the saying is possession is 9/10ths of the law, but rarely is that truly the case, especially when discussing products of reproduction involving more than one party (We have already established that it cannot be done as a single party), so possession alone does not imply ownership. Second point in the U.S. there are child support laws, pain and simple as one of the two additives in the process, one or the other can be sued for support by the one in possession. They are the responsible party, held accountable for their actions. All well and good, but hold on, if the woman and the woman alone has sole right to decide whether or not to have the child without consent of the father, then how can he be held accountable for an action in which he had no say so? Please do not go back and try the old argument of he had is say at the time of conception, because suprise so did the woman.
I know that you and your followers will probably trash this and say on another misogynist male who doesn’t have a clue; but why don’t you try being hones with yourself for once.
The rest of your points I more or less agree with to an extent, although number 9 sounds like you want to create a Matriarchy which is simply the polar opposite of a Patriarchy and therefore no better or worse. As you have noted yourself, there are plenty of women in the money grubbing pool of corporate greed.