For the abortion right, that's the natural right of self-determination - hence abortion can be restricted in the second and third trimesters, so long as the woman has a meaningful opportunity before then to make her choice free of the State's coercion.
With or without legal abortion, women have the exact same capability as men to practice self-determination with regard to reproduction free of the state's coercion - if you don't want to have a baby, don't engage intercourse. Abortion does not protect that right for a woman, it protects her from the consequences of failing to exercise that right. However we define life, whether it's viability or, as I think more appropriate, distinct human DNA, positing that abortion is a right while child support is an obligation by definition means that women inherently have rights that men do not have, hence all citizens do *not* have equal rights. This is not equality before the law.
Maintaining this position grants logically that men can inherently have rights which women do not have. What are those distinct male-only rights?
It is refreshing to see a well-articulated take on the abortion right from the perspective of a limited-government conservative! It seems sometimes that the social conservatives have eclipsed and seek to drown out the more traditional idea of conservatism as protecting individual liberty.
Limited-government conservatism does not mean no government. Government *does* have a compelling interest in protecting human life. The debate here is not over what the law says - in fact the law defines human life by reference to viability - the debate is over what the law *should* say. The case for repealing Roe is *not* that the viability-based definition is somehow being misinterpreted; the case against Roe is that the viability-based definition is simply wrong. Individual *liberty* cannot be protected in the absence of individual *life* being protected.
