It occurred to me - and I doubt I am the first - how similar vegetarians and prolife people are. There are differences, but the similarity is strong.
There are two basic kinds of vegetarians: ones who see it purely as a quality of health issue, and those who see it also as a concern for the life/quality of life of the animal. Several levels of commitment also exist, but this discussion is not about that.
Look at the prolifer (several kinds of those as well, but dealing here, in this discussion, just with those who oppose abortion). He or she sees the life in the womb as sacred as the life outside of the womb. By 'sacred' I am including both the secular and theological concepts, that it has great value worthy of being respected to the point of saving, or not hindering.
How does the vegetarian who sees a chicken's life as sacred differ?
To accomplish meat eating, or abortion, the object in question must cease existing. The vegetarian sees this as reprehensible and unethical, just as the prolifer, as they see it as the killing of a life. Both people will fight to defend that life. Both see any negotiation as still resulting in death. Both mourn when there is such a premeditated killing.
Too often, vegetarians are lumped in with 'liberals' and prolifers are dumped in with 'conservatives', even though they share this fundamental respect for life. This is a political convenience used as an effort to demonize and manipulate the other, and, philosophically, erroneous.