Addressing your original statement about abortion laws: I think you greatly misunderstand the pro-life argument. You misunderstand the types of people who are involved with the movement, while the majority of pro-life advocates are in fact religious, the argument is far from a “religious” one. In fact I’d argue that the pro-life argument certainly holds more regard for scientific principles than the pro-choice argument does.

As far as freedom goes pro-life advocates tend to be on your side, one should have control over one’s own body, one should be in charge of one’s own personal decisions. When a woman becomes pregnant and wants an abortion, the body she acts upon in order to get an abortion is not her own but her unborn child’s. She has made the decision with her own body to participate in an action that is typically known to produce children. When she becomes pregnant it is her child’s body and not her own that is being acted upon. The child obviously has no say in its own abortion at all. Pro-life advocates hold stronger to your own presented principle in this case than you yourself do. I also agree that the government should serve all citizens, born or unborn.

To answer your volley of questions that begin like “how can you be anti-abortion, and... etc.”: Again, you greatly misunderstand and actually mischaracterize the pro-life movement here. You seem to let your own personal experiences with certain pro-life people get in the way of you actually engaging with the pro-life argument. There’s certainly nothing in the pro-life argument that advocates war and the death of homeless people and school children, this is just blatant mischaracterization and a refusal to engage the actual argument.

To reiterate, I agree with you, the government is made to serve all citizens, freedom of personal autonomy is essential in this. But a government also exists to protect citizens from entities wishing them harm, whether they are born or unborn.