What do smaller govt. Cons think the govt. should have the power to force a woman to go though a pregnancy even if she doesn't want to?

Definite lines of when a zygote becomes a human life need to be established. Personally I think that line should be at the 8 week point. That's when they have a heart beat and can feel pain. After that point it becomes straight up murder. I'm all for having a small constitutional government, something we haven't seen in decades. But murder has never been a civil right. We want liberty, not anarchy.

The govt shouldn't support infanticide

the government doesn't force women to get, or be pregnant. the woman, chooses to if nature allows her.

cons protect innocent babies--until the baby is born of course! then it becomes a parasite like the rest of the 99%!

Republicans are owned by the corporate elite. End of story. Imagine sitting in a board room at Exxon and saying, “We’re going to cut our management team in half because small is always better.” We currently have 600,000 FEWER federal employees than we had under GW Bush - yet Obama favors “big gov’t?” Righties have lost their minds.

I believe they want the issue as a states right, not federal mandate for all. Isn't that what diversity means, to have a choice?

Governments don't force a woman to have a baby. The woman has the baby on her own. She just shouldn't have the right to murder the child that has taken up residence in a space inside her.

It's the woman's choice to not use birth control so she won't have a pregnancy (we all know how we get pregnant now) and the cost is a lot less than an abortion. After a baby has been conceived, it is not her choice to murder it. Government laws protect bird eggs and nests of certain animals, so why shouldn't they protect the fetus of a human baby?

So who defends the person inside? https://s.yimg.com/hd/answers/i/f90fd034a9274ba4b59bf8e5c77d2ba9_A.jpeg?a=answers&mr=0&x=1400250746&s=82e1a6cf9d4fd883bd969d73d83c58a6