[Caesar88]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way a person can subscribe to the former belief, while rejecting the latter belief? It would seem hypocritical to me but perhaps someone can rationalize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion as it seems to be pretty ridiculous. However seeing as how you have, here are some of the many reasons why you can be pro-life and not anti-tax.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of "it is immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. Mothers should not be forced to give their bodily resources to the fetus, even if revoking those resources will result in the fetus' death."

[/ QUOTE ]

I've known women that have had abortions, and heard about others, and in all cases, none of them were arguing for the abortion because they were "forced to give their bodily resouces to the foetus." They had one because they had never wanted it in the first place, or because they were raped, or because it would shame their parents, etc. The bodily resources argument, although sound for legality, is bureaucratic and devoid of emotion. Probably the only woman in the world who would have an abortion because the foetus was 'sucking her resouces dry' would be Paris Hilton.

[ QUOTE ]
But if that is a person's stance, then that person should also believe that government-imposed taxation is immoral. ie, "it is immoral to force people to pay taxes to the government. Citizens should not be forced to give their money to the government, even if revoking that money will result in the government's collapse." It seems perfectly analogous.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't, because they are completely separate concepts. Having an abortion is done when a woman reaches her emotional cusp and decides it is the only option. It is a decision based mostly on emotion. Paying taxes is different. You pay taxes, in theory, because it is the right thing to do; you are being forced to give something back (as you probably wouldn't if you weren't forced). It is a decision based on logic and reasoning. WHEN YOU LEARN THE CONCEPTS BEHIND BOTH IDEAS, YOU LEARN THAT THEY ARE INHERENTLY DIFFERENT AND COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE. So much so that they cannot be used in your analogy.

However most obvious reason would be that you would have heard about it by now, instead of inventing the idea yourself. Have you heard of an anti-tax group, or at least one that is linked to pro-choice groups? I'm going to guess you haven't, probably because I don't think any exist. If your connection between these two groups is anything more than your own strange logical reasoning, the proof would lie in said group's existence. If it doesn't exist, then neither does the truth behind belief.