system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: A “pro-life” stance is logically at odds with being against universal health care

My view: being pro-life, particularly to the point of considering any abortion unacceptable, is contradictory to the view that the government is not responsible for ensuring universal access to health care.

Note, I do not believe that the inverse (that being pro-choice is contradictory to supporting universal health care) is a true statement; my view is specifically based on the logic used to support pro-life views and the inverse is a totally different situation.

In all the conversations I’ve had with pro-life people, the justification for their view is that any human life is precious and must be protected under the law, even as a fetus. Many of these people are also against universal health care, which would undoubtedly save lives of people gaining coverage under it. I do not understand how someone would so strongly defend the life of a fetus, oftentimes at substantial toll to the mental & physical health of the mother, but then turn around and be against a system that would provide life-saving healthcare for born, breathing humans. Why is it that the care pro-lifers ostensibly have for the fetus disappears when it exits the womb?
gpt
The connecting point, is personal responsibility. 

In conservative thought, pregnant women are responsible for having had sex nd gotten pregnant, so they are obliged to preserve the fetus's life, and people are responsible to work hard to afford their own health care, and the rich shouldn't be compelled to give them a leg up. 

Note that many conservatives are also in favor of abortion in the event of rape, which WOULD BE inconsistent with just wanting to save all lives at all cost for the sake of saving them, but it is consistent with specifically compelling sinful women to save the lives of fetuses.