Democrats in order to justify abortion has used the argument that developing babies in the womb can be thought of as parasites living inside the mother and stealing nutrients in order to live and grow restricting their bodily autonomy

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetus-focus-fallacy.shtml

"In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host. I'm not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this would include most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent[13] - if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated. "

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/unborn-child-a-parasite-a-tapeworm-columnist

 “The fetus is merely a wad of cells. A mere wad of cells doesn’t equate to a fully functioning, living human being. A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions… Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/15192/girls-calls-baby-parasite-amanda-prestigiacomo

"Abortion-obsessed Lena Dunham's Girls, airing on HBO, refers to an unborn baby as a "parasite" during an episode called What Will We Do This Time About Adam?

The character of Hannah, played by Dunham, is more than 20 weeks into her pregnancy when her friend Elijah refers to the baby as a "parasite growing inside of you." He makes the reference before offering to find a clinic for Hannah to have the baby aborted."

I think its a fair conclusion to state that unborn babies result in a restriction of freedom and bodily autonomy for mothers

However, these are the same people that have recently put forwards proposals such as 

https://medium.com/economicsecproj/universal-basic-income-is-officially-part-of-the-california-democratic-party-platform-fc483ee040b2

"“I think it’s important because it is another step in mainstreaming the idea of basic income,” said Owen Poindexter, a candidate for state assembly in district 15 who himself is running on UBI, “this is another hand hold on the wall we’re climbing.” Poindexter is hoping that the new party platform will make people more comfortable with basic income as a talking point, “this makes it easier for politicians to point to the platform and start a conversation, and it makes it easier for voters to bring it up when they are asking questions of candidates.”"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html

"The overview notes that the Green New Deal aims to provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

How do you ensure everyone a basic income? you do so by siphoning more resources from the people who are gathering resources to begin with(typically men ironically) restricting their bodily autonomy... seeing the parallels here? Is this not like a baby siphoning resources from a mother? 

Please discuss if its a fair comparison or not below

How many of those countries went full blown socialist? How many have been even partially socialist for a long time if not their entire existence? How many were capitalist before? How much stronger do countries become the more socialism you implement?

If war ever comes to Norway, NZ, or Aus, how well is socialism going to help protect them? How is America easily able to protect itself, as well as much of the rest of the world?

Only in America can one be in full support of assault weapons, basically no limitations on weaponry ownership, not wanting any background checks and an adamant defender of the death penalty and yet unironically call themselves "Pro-Life".

Pretty sure that's the point of this restriction: To ensure nobody aborts.

Much better than you'd think. European armies for instance are lowly funded because military in general are not in high esteem there after WW2 and the Cold War. Unless they get blitzed however, they can quickly turn the tide by turning up the war industry (which is already turned up in the US) and would be easy to find volunteers by the metric ton if the country gets attacked, as they would know what they are fighting for (something that's not guaranteed when you join the army otherwise).

As for the US... Just need to kill a couple American soldiers, and the morale of the US population tanks and want to end the hostilities immediately. The US have the material and the men, but not the morale at home for any casualties at war. And that's all the fault of Bush, both of them, as they promised bloodless carnages, wars without losses, something that's absolutely impossible to achieve. But the people soaked it up like a sponge. The spectre of Vietnam is still in their minds...