No. Capitalism leads to the freedom of all individuals — whether male or female — by banishing the initiation of force from all relationships. Capitalism is the only system that leads to political equality — an equality of rights (as opposed to an egalitarian equality of economic results).
Rights belong to all individuals equally. Under capitalism females have the same and equal political rights as males, since they have in principle an equal mental capacity to reason as males (though physically the average female is weaker). As capitalism is the social system that rewards production, under capitalism a rational woman can easily support herself.
As to wages, in a free market, an individual is paid based on the value of what he/she can offer to others. As an illustration, observe the large number of women, who earn enormous salaries that dwarf those of most men.
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the induced removal of an embryo or fetus (that is incapable of survival outside the body of the woman) which results in the death of the embryo/fetus.
The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman? Or: does a woman’s body belong to her
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called “pro-lifers” as they are against the right to life of the actual human being, the pregnant women) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman’s womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman’s womb.
What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the permission of that person. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.
Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.
This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose whom she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman’s right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
As there is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is aborted, because of incest, or rape, or “convenience” does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman’s inalienable right.
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e., it is a part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, such as when “pro-life” terrorists bomb abortion clinics.
Under capitalism (a social system based on the principle of individual rights) abortion is an inalienable right. Anyone who advocates the outlawing of abortion (especially in the first few months of pregnancy) — is an enemy of individual rights in principle, and thus an enemy of capitalism. As for those on the Left, who think one can have a right to property without a right to one’s body, they are guilty of context dropping.
Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A newborn child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as an adult. However, the application of this right for a young child differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child’s conceptual faculty is not fully developed, i.e., a six-year-old does not have the right to choose to enter a sexual relationship, whereas an adult does.
A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity but requires a host to survive. A fetus’ so-called right to life boils down to the “right to remain in the womb”—and such a “right” is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child’s right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged “right” that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as “trading one’s rights for the rights of others.” Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.