Kaiser, what I meant by 'antiquated' was the idea that choice for women should be rolled back. And yes, there are many restrictions on abortion depending on where you live (3rd- or 2nd-trimester bans, parental consent requirements, 'cooling-off' periods, etc.)
I don't think I have to tell you that if it were men and boys getting pregnant, the law wouldn't be talking down to them the way it historically has to women. (A comedian once said that if men needed abortions, there would be clinics all over with scantily-dressed nurses cooing, "local or general?") On the serious side, though, whether or not to have an abortion is an extremely weighty, serious decision and I don't know that I could ever do that. What I question is who has a right to legislate on the issue and make that decision for everyone.
Any classical small-government conservative (who also questions the right to legislate against gun ownership) should be able to relate to that.
I think you have many misconceptions.
First of all, roe v wade is federal; it applies everywhere. It's ONLY restrictions for any woman seeking an abortion in 2nd or 3rd trimesters and up to, literally, the moment before labor, are physician assessments of serious health dangers to the woman if the procedure is done. These are not truly "restrictions" on choice; they are the same types of medical determinations made for nearly any surgeries. The baby is never at issue or considered, under law. As long as the baby is in the uterus, it can be killed. This allows a woman--not a husband, father, boyfriend, legal entity or anyone else--to destroy a baby that could have been born an hour later as a healthy human being. Regarding the parental concent, the GIRLS involved are not women. If they were 18, they'd be adults and not at issue. To suggest 'women's' rights are in jeopardy because of parental consent issues relative to girls is quite misleading.
secondly, the old "if men got pregnant..." line is quite unrealistic. Fact is that 31% of all single parent households are headed by men who, unlike their female counterparts, are rarely provided "support" in various ways to manage parenting, working, and household. Over half of divorces involve the husband/father seeking custody of his children, which almost never happens..just because of gender bias. The fact men struggle to obtain custody in an uphill, losing battle is testimony to their dedicated effort to be responsible fathers. If men got pregnant, we might have better families. The rights that have been "rolled back" are those of the male half of the population.
thirdly, the label of 'small government conservative' should not suggest to a thinking person that laws and rules ought not exist. The large government liberal should relate to the fact that large societies and groups of people often do not make the right choices for themselves and need right thinking governments to guide their behavior.
