So you want to talk about hypocrites most pro lifers are major hypocrites and aren't really that pro life. If all theses pro lifers where really pro life there would be no need for orphanages and a foster care system. Most pro lifers talk a good talk but would never actually adopt a kid or even a unwanted animal

Well throughout most of human kinds existence kids where seen as cheap or free labor all around the world.

Yea I believe USA didn't have any child labor laws till early 1900s.  I'm not saying kids should be forced into a factory or hazardous job again but they can do simple jobs like lawn mowing and newspaper delivery.  When I turned 14 my parents told me to get a job so I had an easy  biweekly local paper route.  I also had to do chores like mowing grass and cleaning to earn my 5 to 10 dollar  weekly allowance.  Basically my parents could have given me nothing and just forced me to do it.  However the money gave me more incentive to do a good job.

"If all theses pro lifers where really pro life there would be no need for orphanages and a foster care system."

not necessarily, what their general goal is if I understand them correctly is to reduce the chances of unwanted conceptions by enforcing strict monogamy in women so that the births that do happen occur within a family unit that will take care of the children

in addition to that they are for shaming sex outside of marriage to reduce the chances of births occurring outside of the family unit

the puritans of the past had these values for a reason, they amazingly enough understood that allowing promiscuity comes with the price of unwanted children and maybe even beyond that the murder of unwanted unborn children

for all the flack they get for being "backwards" it is remarkable that they figured this stuff out back then and put a system in place to deal with these issues

"Most pro lifers talk a good talk but would never actually adopt a kid or even a unwanted animal"

you mean like socialists who never actually lift a finger to do anything for the poor and just spend their time online talking about how the rich need to be torn down?

1. "can you quote me directly where i said that?"

Yes.  "

I asked you if you can be pro choice and not think of a baby as a parasite.  Your answer was no.  If you'd like to clarify what you said go for it, but if you can be pro choice and not think of a baby as a parasite, your whole argument fails.

2. "and none are declaring one thing to be equal to another which is what i said"

Yes... very good.  You can indeed use is without equating things.  Which was exactly the point I was making.  Just like you can use the phrase just like while being literal (as I just did).  

You have to look at the context. 

3. "some reading comprehension here would go a long way

up to now i still don't see how you can seriously argue that "a foetus is just like a parasite" is a literal statement"

That sentence does not appear anywhere up until now.  And I have no idea whether that should be taken to be literally or figuratively.  I would need more context to what they were saying.  I've given you examples where just like denotes a literal comparison or a figurative.  I'm sorry, but you just don't have a firm grasp on this. 

4.  "people have a choice when it comes to paying taxes? how do you get out of it?"

Never said that.  This is what happens when you pull one sentence out of a paragraph without context.  

5. "almost like how people are forced to work more when taxes are increased"

No they're not.  They can choose whether or not they want to work more hours.  

"can you quote me directly where i said that?"

Yes.  "no i don't think that's a good way to assess this"

did you read this at all and comprehend it? why did you ignore the part afterwards that actually addresses my point of view?

"You can indeed use is without equating things.  Which was exactly the point I was making. "

and a point i never implied that i disagreed with so its a bit strange that you'd make the point to begin with

"You have to look at the context. "

not in cases where someone is using "just like" since its not an equation but a comparison

the definition of literal language is as follows "Literal language means exactly what it says"

what is the context for the development of a baby in the womb? and what is the context for the development of a parasite within the body?

"people have a choice when it comes to paying taxes? how do you get out of it?"

Never said that.  This is what happens when you pull one sentence out of a paragraph without context. 

" My point of view it that they have a choice.  They do not have to engage in any particular activity as a direct result of a UBI increase or any other tax. "

how do you pay taxes without working?

"They can choose whether or not they want to work more hours.  "

and allow their standard of living to collapse as a result... and you think this is a sensible argument?

Arguably, the biggest pro-life organization (The Catholic Church), also operates the most orphanages in the world. The argument doesn't really fly.

Just don't let any priest near the children.  We need to protect the children.

1.  Yes, I read what you said.  Which seemed like dodging the actual question.  So, please clarify for me.  Can one support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  

2.  I'm sorry, but you're just showing yourself to be profoundly ignorant on how the English language works.  If I say, "you have the Switch with the red and blue Joycon just like me", "your twin looks just like you", "these taste just like McDonald's fries", "I have a bag just like that one", or "I'll pay for you just like I did last time".  These are all literal statements that use the phrase just like. All of these phrases mean exactly what they say.  Having just like does not magically make something metaphorical.  You seem to want to just take sentences out of context, both with the articles and with these posts, but that's just not how reading works.  

An equation is a form of comparison.  It is comparing two things and finding them to be equal.  I'm not sure what you're on about there. 

By context, I obviously meant the context of the writing.  Not the context of a fetus.  That's just a weird concept.  

3.  "and allow their standard of living to collapse as a result... and you think this is a sensible argument?"

Yes.  It's a sensible argument for why the two situations are different.  There is a difference between being forced to do something and being compelled to do something by circumstance.  Banning abortion forces women to carry a fetus to term.  To use their body in a very particular way they may find objectionable, to risk serious bodily harm, etc. 

Raising taxes gives people a choice, based on how severe the increase is (you're assuming standard of living will collapse, but that may or may not be the case).  They can choose to work the same amount if the money is not important to them.  If they do decide it's worth working more, they have a choice of any number of ways they can go about earning the money, which may or may not involve working more, (they can also demand a raise, switch jobs, look for a more profitable company, etc.), may or may not involve bodily risk, etc.    

All of which is not to say that UBI is a good idea (I'm undecided on that) but that it is very different from a ban on abortion.  The idea that one's opinion on one matter has to inform their opinion on another is frankly stupid.  It's an argument by analogy fallacy.  

Serious problems with the church aside, the fact they operate the most orphanages in the world is still a fact. And child abuse in Catholic institutions has dropped off sharply since internal reforms in the early 2000's. But since they didn't market that fact it seems the general public is still unaware.