If the conservatives cared about abortion they'd care about the life of the mother by supporting her, they do nothing, if they cared about the child, they'd support nutritional and educational supports, they do nothing there either. Morality confuses the right, absolutists only preach, the complexity of living is beyond their understanding.
Abortion requires nothing from the moral absolutist and involves the State in a family matter. Oh and one more thing, no masturbation and if married make sure no contraceptives are ever used for if so you too are aborting the potential for life. Try not to be a hypocrite.
The interested reader can check my links and the book noted below. Book noted below is about rights harm etc and for the open minded a complex read. "It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy."
http://www.ditext.com/feinberg/abortion.html
Repost:
Abortion remains the hypocrite's crutch. I often ask pro life people why it is they don't have more children? How is it that this month they prevented another human from existing? Obviously I get puzzled faces and the religious person falls back on the excuse that only conception forms a human. Of course that isn't medically true as the process from conception to person is fraught with other complexities and many conceptions end naturally. You could then ask since this is fact, where do these conceptions grow up and don't they have it kinda easy if there is a personal God looking over us? Of course the conception would miss the turmoil of human existence in all its ups and downs. But a harder question may be so what you are pro life, a child in the world dies of natural but preventable causes every few seconds. Shouldn't we be doing something in this area? Or consider healthcare is that not pro life and why is our mortality rate at birth so poor? Anyone know? Of course not, for being pro life is like so many emotions meaningless, it sounds nice and makes the person feel good but it is meaningless. Supporting life is the real choice, think conservatives will ever support living children?
https://www.salon.com/2018/07/08/whe...-of-hypocrisy/
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ou.../abortion.html
http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.php
http://harpers.org/blog/2015/08/we-do-abortions-here/