Originally Posted by heftylefty
This is one of those "Life is not Fair" examples. Connors' or any man can't get pregnant, thus have no say in regarding a woman's body or her choices. If Evert felt the need to keep this matter private; I would imagine that a decent human being would honor that. But no one is accusing Connors of being decent.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Chris Evert fan.
Yes, somehow resorting to an abortion because the timing was professionally inconvenient without giving the father of said baby a say in the matter makes Evert a decent human being, right? But when Connors talks about it in his biography, that makes him an indecent human being, right?
I find this type of "morality" somewhat suspect.
There's a conflict of interest between the baby and the mother. Someone recently joked that if babies in the womb had guns, there would be far less abortions.