Its not, you will find that a lot of liberals, Dems, you name it carry guns as well.  I would say the difference is how each side believe there should be restrictions and gun laws which is where they differ.

Liberals believe that they should be heavily regulated since they are dangerous. 

Conservatives believe that they are a fundamental right and that is more important than health or safety. (As always, conservatives want all the rights without any of the responsibilities that come with it.) 

Regardless of how DNA tests actually work, if somebody in Sweeden genuinely had a reasonable objection to having their blood tested, do you think they would not find another way to do it that would work without the part they disapprove of? For instance, if in the US we did blood tests for DNA and a Jehovah's witness (they are against blood transfusions and such) legitimately objected, we'd find another way to do it. If on the other hand, they just don't want to be found to be the father, that is not about bodily autonomy. 

There is to my knowledge no serious discussion about forcing parents to give organs, or harvest dead organs. Although, there actually have been cases I believe of keeping a brain dead mother alive for the sake of a fetus, so I don't think it's ridiculously far fetched, even if it is unlikely. At any rate, that's not my point. My point is why we find generally find those cases so obvious even if the imposition is incredibly minor, even if it will preserve life, even if there is no legitimate reason not to undergo a procedure etc., and how the case of the pregnant woman is different. The examples were not designed to be realistic, but specifically to isolate the particular reasons one might give that a woman has to carry a fetus to term in any event. But if we want to talk about actual realistic consequences of the law, then there are plenty of those, which is why I shifted.

This ties into factual vs legal distinction. In a court in the US, there are two functions, stating what the law is, and finding facts. Typically a judge does the first, and a jury the second. Generally speaking, the law should, and pretty much must, be consistent on the law itself. To again be overly broad, laws are either based on rights we have, obligations we have, or restrictions on the government. Those rights, are the same, regardless of circumstance. 

To use a clearer example, lets go with birth defect. In the situation of a healthy fetus vs one with a birth defect that will likely not result in stillbirth, then the factual distinction is obvious. The legal distinction is incredibly unclear. Why in that situation does the defective fetus not have a right to life? I can't think of a good answer to that, so I don't see how we can justify a 24 week abortion ban with such an exception without it being arbitrary, which I believe it is. A 15 week old vs 24 week old, you can say viability is the legal distinction, that rights kick in at a certain age, but I don't see why that should be the case. And maybe in other countries it ultimately doesn't matter in a practical sense because they're not going to try to restrict abortions at 15 weeks or earlier, but here they absolutely would, so the underlying rationale is incredibly important.

Pretty much this.  Republicans do not want any restrictions on gun ownership as they believe once you start down that road, then it just escalate.  Dems feel there should be restrictions on gun ownership.  I will say these are majority opinions as you can find Dems who believe the other way and Republicans who believe there should be restrictions. It would be unwise if you ran up on some liberal woman and believe she isn't packing.  Some of the most liberal women I know would send you to the grave faster than Satan if you ran up on them thinking they are easy prey.

Not sure if that could be defined as robbery or rape, as easy prey can be a very broad title.  For all you know, they would shoot you just for stepping on their nice shoes or bumping into them or giving them direct eye contact.  You only assume its limited to just those 2 specific cases. As far as the advice, it means never underestimate or assume anything else you be six feet under asking GOD how you got here.

Naw, its not a matter of being strong, its  matter of feeling safe.  It just so happen I have read way to many conservative that believe just because some people have liberal ideals or vote on certain subjects mean they  would not resort to extreme measures to protect themselves which is a fallacy.  That is like saying just because someone calls themselves a Christian and go to Church they do not carry a gun and would not send you to the afterlife if they feel threaten.  I know many woman that carry and most are Christian woman.

You should continue to thank whatever GOD that it remains that way.  The US is not the same place its advertised to be.  There is the marketing and then there is the reality.

I was just reminded that Disney owns Fox. Man would it be interesting if the network goes liberal with Republicans trying to hurt them like Desantis and Josh Hawley. Would be interesting as hell if suddently Fox started to question the GOP decisions and push for more critical reports.

Iirc the "news" branch was not part of Disney's buyout.

Disney only bought Fox's entertainment assets (Simpsons, Star Wars, etc.) Rupert Murdoch's News Corp still owns Fox "News."