Very simply question for Pro-Lifers:
are you also against the death penalty, wars other than wars of pure self-defense, and do you support the government using all of its resources to help the weakest amoung us?
There's a better question to ask based on the view point of Pro-Lifers and trying to find an analog in terms of it being non-hypocritical.
Do they support the State stepping in and taking a child away if a parent is found to be severely abusive up to and including the point where they are doing mortal harm?
The generalized arugment of a pro-lifer is that the unborn child is just that....a child. As such, the mother (or father) has no more right to terminate its life due to their responsabilities associated with the creation of said child at the point that it's inside then they have when it's alive and having to be housed/fed in a different manner. Essentially, a child is protected under the law from harm and the state has the power to put forward such protection, even against the parents wishes.
As such, lets compare that reasoning to the things you asked:
Death Penalty ... The individual being killed has been given a, theoritically, fair trial by a jury of his peers and has been found to be guilty of such a henious crime that it is allowable under the law to be punishable by death. A fact that the perpetrator would be, or easily could've made themselves, aware of prior to committing their act. In this case, there is no necessity nor reason that the state should act to defend the individual from death.
Against wars other than self defense ... First, you run into a "HUGE" ball of wax with "self defense" in terms of warfare terminology. It can be argued that something like the Iraq was was a war of "self defense". You could actually mean not engaging in wars unless we have been physically attacked first...but again, that grows issues such as "what about our allies being attacked"? Think WWI. Second, you still run into an issue where there's less belief that the United States government needs to actively work to protect everyone else in the world. IE, you're not seeing most Pro-Lifer's argue that we need to say...go to France and forcefully stop women from having abortions.
Government welfare .... Again, not an analog in the least. While we can argue to the extent that it is constitutionally mandated that the government help those who are poor off in this country, the burden and extent that the government protects children from people trying to kill them is not nearly on par with that to automatically provide "Food, housing, and health care".
It is quite simple and easy to remain ideologiclaly consistent with being "pro-life" in terms of abortion and against those things you stated.
