Thank you again for your reply, and I understand more of where you are coming from.
Just to clarify a few things, here is the beginning of your original reply:
"I wonder how many of you out there, honestly, would actually take a bullet for your wife or children."
Did you forget the word husband, or are you simply announcing officially you think women's lives are more valuable than men's lives?
I was not intentionally omitting the word husband, but by the use of the word wife rather than woman, I think that it may be implied.
Additionally, you mentioned the following:
Yes, it's a real shame our species has a healthy surivival instinct instead of complete and utter codependency and inferiority complexes.
My point was that I believe it would be right for me to shield one of my children from harm, like a bullet. If your response was driven to its logical conclusion, then it would be better for me to hold one of my children between me and the bullet, using them as a "meat-shield", in order to protect myself and promote my own survival. I would disagree with that.
The point of my post, as summed up in the last two questions was that if a someone would be willing to die for their loved ones perhaps they should consider living for them in a more intentional way. "Cannon-fodder" has nothing to do with living, but rather dying.
Moreover, to "blame women" for initiating 70% of divorces may seem like they bear the burden of guilt. If they swore 'til death do we part, then obviously they at least broke their vows. However, I believe that certain actions of the husband could lead to the wife initiating divorce, could they not? I could live in such a way today that could convince my wife that it may be best to divorce me.
The main point, written from my personal perspective of a man, husband, and father, was that if we ALL learned to put our loves ones ahead of ourselves, then I believe that families and marriages would be better than they are.