Is the Pro-Life View Consistent with Liberalism?

I have a friend who is a so far left, he almost borders on Marxist. He is a vegan, dislikes Bush immensely, and has never seen a social program he did not support. He is also very pro-life. I feel bad for him on election day - he always has to make compromise regarding his pro-life beliefs or his political liberalism. I, on the other hand, usually am able to choose a candidate that both supports the sanctity of life as well as my other political leanings. Over time I have come to believe that it should be the other way around. I believe the pro-life view is consistant with political liberalism.

One of the goals of classic liberalism is to protect the weak from the powerful. Social programs are enacted to ensure the evil corporations do not take advantage of the worker. Liberalism implies that all human beings share a form of human dignity, so one human being should not be victimized or marginalized by another simply because someone possesses more power.

Another goal of liberalism is a form of radical personal autonomy. A human being should have the liberty to make any decision they wish as long as it does not harm another human being. Government intervention is only justified if its goal is to protect a weak individual from the tyranny of a strong one. Outside of that, the government should stay out of personal decisions.

Abortion choice advocacy is inconsistent with either of these goals. First, the choice to have an abortion entails a mother choosing to intentionally kill her small, weak, dependent offspring. Because the mother holds a position of power over her offspring, she may allow a physician "treat" her condition by killing her fetus. However, since we know that the fetus is a living organism of our species (a human being), its size, strength, or dependency should be reason to protect it, not a reason used to justify its intentional death. The precepts of liberalism should protect the innocent, not advocate its destruction because its in a position of vulnerability.

Although bodily autonomy is often used to justify the abortion decision by the mother, its use is also inconsistant with liberalism. In order for any individual to claim bodily autonomy to justify an action, the action itself must not be used to adversely effect another's body. In the case of abortion, the goal of an abortion is kill a living human being and remove their body from their mother's uterus. The autonomy of the mother should not be used to adversely effect the personal autonomy of her fetus.

Looking at it another way, the pro-abortion choice advocate states that the government has no right to impinge on her decisions, especially the decision to pay a doctor to provide an abortion. However, if the government has no right to impinge on her autonomy, then why does she have a right to impinge on her fetus' autonomy? The ground that is used to justify abortion is clearly used inconsistantly.

If pro-abortion choice liberalism were applied across the board, we would strive to protect the weak and innocent - unless their intentional death would benefit another. We would also strive to protect individual choices - as long as the one making the choice is strong and not dependent on another. If you are weak and defenseless - your autonomy does not count. This is not only inconsistant, it is incoherent.