You don't get it Joel, it is not whether or not I agreed in whole or part or not at all with your remarks it is that I never even mentioned abortion. I didn't consider the subject part of my reply, and moreover the individual ethics of abortion, much like the ethics of self-defense, really aren't germane to the OP. It was asking why pro-gun and pro-life, but why pro-life was not requiring explanation, he wasn't asking why conservatives oppose abortion, everyone knows why. We think it is a person. The question being posed, which as I said was a very foolish one, was why we think some people don't have that right and my answer was we don't believe any one can individually choose to to take away another's right to live, but they can be forgiven for taking a life if they credibly and reasonably believed doing so would prevent them self or another being harmed, or if the death was accidental. Those give forgiveness or mitigation, they are not hunting licenses.

This, if you insist on viewing it as abortion that needs discussed, comes back to your point about no exceptions. A law does not need the exceptions included, the purpose is to recognize a fetus as a person, at which point all the normal exceptions apply. We do not need the law to specifically say "Abortion is allowed if the mother's life is credibly in danger" because it automatically is. The concept of a justifiable killing does not require the person meant to do you harm or even that you thought they did. This, at least, comes back to the OP, and justified killings. It isn't about guns, they are simply the most advantageous means of personal defense, any law even mentioning guns in regard to justified killings is a flawed and screwed up one and I'd argue the same applies to abortion. A killing was either accidental or not, either justified or not. If a fetus is a person then their status as a fetus has no more to do with that justification then a gun does, relevant to the specific case but not the law governing it. The specifics of a case might hinge on whether or not it was a pregnancy or if a gun was involved, but there's no need for the law to stipulate different rights of self-preservation applying because they are, because they don't. Thus abortion is exactly the same as self-defense, unless there is a reasonable perception someone's life is in grave and immediate danger no single person just gets to decide if other people live or die, and if it is grave and imminent they still must answer to others and show that it was so. If they can not they may be tried and may be punished if a jury can not be convinced that they have not raised reasonable doubt about the death.

Thus, there is no contradiction in the philosophy. You don't have to agree with it, but that's how it is. The life of a person may not be taken intentionally, period, if the thing is done it is now upon them to explain their reasoning and prove it was more likely than not justified, if they can not do that then the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not justified to actually punish you. It does not change that killing a person is wrong, anymore than it isn't wrong to bust someone's window but becomes justified if you do it to save their child from a fire.