You're missing something here, all of this operates on a principle that says that you do not take life without a good cause, that you harm nothing, especially a person, without cause. You do not destroy without purpose, and where a person is concerned we require that purpose to be especially valid. Even when killing a non-sentient tree we expect some justification, however minimal.
Pro-gun is not pro-death, to the contrary, it simply recognizes that a person has a right to protect their own life from threat. You do not have a right to kill someone on accident, but we hold that murder can not be committed by accident.
It definitely does not mean an accidental killing is 'No big deal', you are, sorry to offend, a fool to say so. It is a very big deal, so is a hurricane that sweeps through a state killing people, but a hurricane is not a murderer and there's no means or reason to punish it. If I hit a bump on the road, swerve and hit someone I've killed them, and it is a big deal, but I am not a murderer, punishment serves no purpose and is not morally justified. Same, if I am convinced my life is in danger I must take action to protect it. After the fact other will wish to know why and to ask if my impression of peril was legitimate and reasonable, and my actions in accordance with that legitimate and reasonable. If the answer to both was yes, then the matter is concluded, it doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal. If a mugger attacks me and I flee, breaking through the door into someone's home for shelter and a phone, and in doing so expose an act of adultery that is a big deal and that person will come to harm in a divorce which was because of my actions but not because I was acting unreasonably or with intent to harm them.
"For cause" abortion was essentially the SCOTUS' position in Doe v. Bolton, and to give you an idea of what a slippery slope that can be: Even I find that ruling reprehensible. Hell, the "PLAINTIFF" does, and filed suit to get the ruling reversed on the grounds her lawyer forged her signature on the documents in the initial suit. Even people arguing for abortion on demand (and there are actually precious few of them) nominally agree "you do not take life without a good cause;" they just define that cause so broadly and loosely it is "minimal" to the point of being negligible.
Talking about "the sanctity of life" (which you may recall was the title of the bill Paul Ryan and Todd Akin co-authored in the last Congress,) is not trying to outlaw abortion EXCEPT when there is cause, sufficient or otherwise: It is an attempt to outlaw all abortion—whether there is no, little or even great cause. If there is any confusion about that, here is an easy rule of thumb:
Does the bill have exceptions for a womans life, her physical wellbeing, rape/incest victims and/or fetuses with crippling/lethal conditions?
In short, does it acknowledge any cause that permits (without necessarily justifying) taking a life? Or simply declare none is sufficient?
It would be far easier to believe the Republican Party respects exceptions to abortion bans if any of its candidates, officeholders or even ITS PLATFORM mentioned one, preferably one of the many places each vocally calls for abortion bans. Are we expected to believe all those blanket abortion bans include exceptions by UNSPOKEN AGREEMENT?! 
That ain't how laws work. 
There is definitely middle ground, but it lies in the middle, not in passing absolute laws while (occasionally) paying lipservice to exceptions those laws lack. Frankly, I think concurrently ruling on Roe and Doe—permanently and inextricably linking both rulings—was among the worst decisions in SCOTUS history, because I support Roe and despise Doe with equal fervor. Virtually all the (often valid) criticisms of abortion on demand have nothing to do with Roe (which only legalized first trimester abortion, not late term abortion, and not "the mental anguish of my swollen feet constitutes a health exception.")
I could get behind abortion bans that only made exceptions for criminal acts or risk of death or physical disability, and the first is somewhat negotiable. For one thing, it would not mean a return to coat hangers; it would not force women to choose HOW they wish to die rather than IF.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
in addition...
*NM*