"No it wouldn't. Whether or not abortion is justifiable from a capitalist (individual rights oriented) viewpoint depends on how you view the fetus. If it is a human life, it has rights, and it is thus right for the government to perform the function of protection. If it is not a human life, it then abortion should be allowed.
Abortion is easilly justifiable from a capitalist viewpoint. All you need to do is accept the fact that the human fetus is indeed a human life, and that it is thus the proper function of government to protect its right to continue to live."
A fetus is 'human life' then again, so is sperm and an ovum. But a fetus isn't a human 'being', therefore, it has no rights.
"Not-banning abortion would be the final blow to America, imo. It would be the recognition, in the most basic forms, that the government's primary duty is no longer to preserve the lives of its human constituents. The notion that government's proper duty is to protect human life is at the very foundation of good government.
No. Sacrificing the rights of the few for the benefits of the many is not right. Each individual should have the inalienable right to LIFE, liberty, and property"
I agree there, but a fetus isn't an individual on the base that it isn't a human being, it has no rights.
>>313
"Those abortions that occur once sentience can be CAST-IRON PROVEN should be banned"
Be careful, that is a double-edge sword. Lemme give an 'if' scenario:
If it is proven that a fetus experiences pain during birth from being squeezed through a tight vagina... then that'll condone the eviseration of pregnant's women's bellies during forced and unnecessary c-sections, just on the bases that the fetus may feel pain. They won't give a damn about the woman herself, and they won't give a damn that she knows what is best for her.
Without a doubt, 'pro-life' laws will harm women who want to have a child as well.
More explained here:
>>276
>>277
"The first case ends tragically, with the death of the mother and the fetus; in the second, the forced surgery turns out not to have been necessary; and the couple in the third scenario — devout Christians who are expecting their seventh child — leave the hospital that is trying to force a cesarean section on the mother and successfully have their baby elsewhere, through vaginal delivery.
Having eviscerated the argument that “pro-life” policies support the health, well-being, and autonomy of women who want to carry their pregnancies to term, Paltrow turns to the larger task of outlining genuine protections and supports for pregnant and parenting women."