Pro-Life

[VAdame]

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Google says that Rose Kennnedy said this! Can't be...

It was Florynce Kennedy.


Flo, not Rose.

[BigDrawMan]

put your money where your mouth is

or shut the hell up.

BigDrawMan, you think that people who voted for Bush twice shouldn't be allowed to vote.
------------
their judgement is obviously impaired.Reelecting the worst president since James Buchanan is insane.


And when someone says something that you disagree with, you tell them to shut the hell up. You must be a proctologist's dream--a walking, talking rectum...

---------------
nononno

when someone whines and moans and complains about something instead of doing something about it, they should shut the hell up.

when you go before your maker on judgement day(the end times are nigh btw), and you are asked what you did about your heart and soul issue of abortion, you can proudly say:


I posted drivel about it on an obscure game show message board.

selah

[Jeemie]

put your money where your mouth is

or shut the hell up.

BigDrawMan, you think that people who voted for Bush twice shouldn't be allowed to vote.
------------
their judgement is obviously impaired.Reelecting the worst president since James Buchanan is insane.


And when someone says something that you disagree with, you tell them to shut the hell up. You must be a proctologist's dream--a walking, talking rectum...

---------------
nononno

when someone whines and moans and complains about something instead of doing something about it, they should shut the hell up.

when you go before your maker on judgement day(the end times are nigh btw), and you are asked what you did about your heart and soul issue of abortion, you can proudly say:


I posted drivel about it on an obscure game show message board.

selah

I can only respond to this blatant hubris with a quote from Broadcast News

It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room.

To which you'll no doubt reply:

NO, it's not, it's awful.

[BigDrawMan]

BigDrawMan, you think that people who voted for Bush twice shouldn't be allowed to vote.
------------
their judgement is obviously impaired.Reelecting the worst president since James Buchanan is insane.


And when someone says something that you disagree with, you tell them to shut the hell up. You must be a proctologist's dream--a walking, talking rectum...

---------------
nononno

when someone whines and moans and complains about something instead of doing something about it, they should shut the hell up.

when you go before your maker on judgement day(the end times are nigh btw), and you are asked what you did about your heart and soul issue of abortion, you can proudly say:


I posted drivel about it on an obscure game show message board.

selah

I can only respond to this blatant hubris with a quote from Broadcast News

It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room.

To which you'll no doubt reply:

NO, it's not, it's awful.

-------------
dannyh may usurp your King of Whiners title

[Jeemie]

dannyh may usurp your King of Whiners title

I'm trying to remember how I earned the crown in your eyes.

[dimmzy]

Since no one ever wins an internet argument, let me tell you what my high school religion teacher, Father Ayoub, said. When we asked him what he thought of abortion (New York had just legalized it), he paused, took his pipe out of his mouth, and replied,

"I believe in retroactive abortion. Parents can decide to have an abortion up until their child is 18. We all know that teenagers are not viable."

[BigDrawMan]

dannyh may usurp your King of Whiners title

I'm trying to remember how I earned the crown in your eyes.

it wasnt me

I think it had to do with the super bowl

which we won

[Jeemie]

dannyh may usurp your King of Whiners title

I'm trying to remember how I earned the crown in your eyes.

it wasnt me

I think it had to do with the super bowl

which we won

Some people have long memories.

[wintergreen48]

I've never stated a position on abortion: I want to be able to pull a David Souter when I get that call about the next Supreme Court vacancy ('No, Senator, I don't know nuthin' 'bout 'bortin' no babies'). Being pro-choice is an absolute litmus test for the Democrats, and being pro-life is an absolute litmus test for many Republicans, so I prefer to be non-committal until push comes to shove.

Which means that this will be a kind of snarky post: I will be criticizing the arguments people make on the issue, without offering any real resolution myself.

It seems very common for pro-choice people to dismiss out of hand any 'religious' argument against abortion, on the grounds that this involves a 'religious' person imposing her/his beliefs on other people, who may not share her/his religious beliefs. The problem with this is that most of our law is based upon 'religious' principles: last I looked, the Ten Commandments (found in a religious book common to Christians and Jews) prohibits murder, theft, perjury, etc., and the Koran has similar prohibitions in it, but I don't think that this means that religious Jews and Christians and Muslims should somehow not be permitted to argue that murder, theft and perjury are bad things. These laws/proscriptions are all based upon the maintenance of social order, and arguing in favor of them is not 'imposing religious beliefs' on other people, but is, at most, making an argument about a subject which, while perhaps, grounded upon religious belief, is not the same thing.

Another pro-choice argument runs along the lines that restricting abortion represents an imposition upon how a person governs her own body-- that is, someone else (the state) is telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. This begs the question, because it simply assumes that there is nothing involved but her body. The parallel argument might involve a rapist arguing that laws against rape represent impositions upon how he governs his own body-- who is the state (or some religious person) to tell HIM where to put HIS penis? But obviously, where a rapist puts his penis impacts someone other than the rapist himself, and I think that everyone (other than rapists) can agree that it is perfectly appropriate for a society to place restrictions on what a rapist does with his body in that context; thus, the pro-choice argument about 'bodily sovreignty' must first address the 'other party' issue, and 'bodily sovreignty' is irrelevant unless/until that is resolved.

This actually leads to an interesting ethical discussion that you could have: suppose you had a pair of conjoined twins, who were joined in such a way that, if they were separated, one would die and the other would (possibly) live (this does happen); suppose further that the twin who has a possibility of independent life demands that he/she be surgically separated from the other? Would anyone buy the argument that this is 'just a medical procedure,' and that no one should interfere with this person's right to decide what to do with her/his own body? Again, to argue that he/she should have the final/sole say on the matter begs the question, because it ignores the existence of the other affected party (ie., the twin who will die).

Another pro-choice argument runs along the lines that 'no one without a uterus' or 'no one who cannot t get pregnant' should have any say in the matter of abortion (i.e., the old joke that 'if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament'). This is somewhat parallel to the 'do not tell me what I can do with my own body' argument, and has a similar weakness: it immediately prompts a response along the lines of 'no one who cannot be aborted should have any say in the matter of abortion' (or the pro-life cliche that 'the only people who favor abortion are people who have already been born').

Pro-choice people sometimes throw out what amounts to a 'hypocrisy' argument, claiming that pro-life people are hypocrites unless they also oppose capital punishment, war, etc. Some pro-lifers are in fact opposed to capital punishment and war, but those who are not would respond that they are opposed to the deliberate, unjustified killing (or 'murder') of innocent life, and that unborn children are innocent life who are deliberately targeted for death for no reason but (usually) someone else's convenience; capital punishment, by definition, is not supposed to be imposed upon innocent people, and to the extent that innocent people are killed by capital punishment or in war, it is 'accidental' (lots of 'accidents' occur in wars; and while I don't believe that anyone has yet identified any innocent person who has been executed in the US since capital punishment was reinstated in 1977-- that was the issue in the 'David Gale' movie a few years ago-- a lot of innocent people have come close, getting reprieves when evidence came out after they were sentenced to death that established that they were, in fact, innocent).

Some people who are pro-life argue that abortion is murder 'except in the case of rape or incest.' The problem with this argument is that, if you believe that 'abortion is murder,' there is no justification for committing that murder just because the father of the murder victim was a criminal (e.g., a rapist). The 'incest' argument is even weaker, since 'incest' itself is not really a defined crime in this context: in most states (probably all 57 states, but I've not checked for sure), 'incest' has nothing to do with determining with whom you can have a sexual relationship, it has everything to do with whom you can have a marital relationship: 'incest' statutes do not prohibit sexual relationships between people who have certain family relationships, rather, they prohibit the marriage or people who have certain family relationships, and these prohibitions often have nothing at all to do with what people usually think of as being 'incestuous' (historical note: Henry VIII did not want to divorce Catherine of Aragon, he wanted the marriage annulled-- declared not to have existed in the first place-- on the grounds that it was illegal from the outset, because it was incestuous. Why was it incestuous? Because Catherine had been married to his older brother, Arthur, and incest laws, outlined both in the Bible and in the common law of England, bar a man from marrying his brother's wife. Catherine objected to the annulment, first, because it would have meant that she and Henry had been living in sin and that she herself would have been 'despoiled,' but also, it would have meant that their daughter, Mary, was a bastard, and Catherine did not want this).

As a practical matter, the 'abortion is murder unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest' argument tends to be moot, insofar as few, if any, abortions ever involve rape or incest (even using the common, rather than the legal, definition of incest). The vast, vast majority of abortions involve middle class white women, who often have some college education, who become pregnant in the course of a consensual sexual relationship when neither they nor their partners are using any form of birth control (arguments have been made that Roe v. Wade is the reason why violent crime rates have dropped so precipitously over the past thirty years, in particular in the last ten years-- the argument being that many of the people who would have been committing those violent crimes are the very ones who were aborted. The problem with that argument or claim is that the drop in violent crimes has occurred across the board, specifically including populations that actually have very low abortion rates: that is, while abortion has been concentrated in the white middle class, the rate of violent crime has dropped substantially everywhere, not just in white middle class neighborhoods, but in white lower and upper middle class neighborhoods, in black neighborhoods, in Asian neighborhoods, etc.)

When you get right down to it, there is really only one issue in abortion, around which everything else is irrelevant, and that is: when is an entity a 'person' who is entitled to legal protection against someone else's attempts to kill him? If you believe (based upon religious or other considerations) that this point is reached at the moment of conception, then presumably all abortion is murder (with the possible exception of an abortion that is in fact performed to save the life of the mother: most people accept 'self defense' as a legitimate reason to take some 'other life' if the 'other life' is in fact threatening the life of the first person; by definition, the 'other life' is not really 'innocent' in that situation, assuming of course that that situation does ever occur).

If you believe (based upon religious or other considerations) that this point is reached at some later date (end of first trimester, end of second trimester, beginning of viability, beginning of sentience, full emergence from the birth canal, 30 days after birth-- an 'ethicist' at Princeton University has argued that it is OK to kill babies until they are 30 days old, because for some reason they aren't entitled to life until that time), then presumably all abortion after that point-- wherever it is-- is murder (again, probably subject to the 'self defense' exception).

And further, if you believe (based upon religious or other considerations) that this point is reached at some later date (end of first trimester, end of second trimester, beginning of viability, beginning of sentience, full emergence from the birth canal, 30 days after birth, whatever), then presumably all abortion before that point is and should be OK, because until you reach that point the only real consideration is what the pregnant woman (or new mother and father of a child less than 30 days of age, if that is what you pick) wants.

So THEN your issue is, how do you decide where that point is?

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court noted that no one has ever really figured out with absolute certainty when 'person-ness' begins, and then of course the Court proceeded to do just that (in brief summary: you are nada until the end of the first trimester; during the second trimester you are a bit more than nada, but the state cannot do anything for you other than to require that you be aborted in a manner that is reasonably safe for the owner of the uterus in which you find yourself; during the third trimester, you are actually something, although the life and health of the owner of the uterus in which you find yourself takes precedence over you). Roe v. Wade is interesting for a lot of reasons-- 5 of the 7 justices who made up the majority for the decision were appointed by Republicans (so much for the idea that Republican Presidents are bad for abortion rights), and that majority included the only Catholic who was then on the Court (so much for the religious argument).

But it is interesting to consider that, in the course of over two hundred years, the Supreme Court has on three occasions decided who (or what classes of people) should be considered to be a 'person' under the Constitution, and each time it has done this it has generated, well, lots of debate.

The first time they did it was in the 1850's, with the Dred Scott decision, when they decided that a black many (or at least, a black man who was a slave) was not a 'person' under the Constitution, instead, black folks were 'property' with whom an owner could do whatever he wished (Dred Scott was a slave whose owner took him from slave Missouri to free Illinois, then back to Missouri; Scott filed for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he became a free man when he was in Illinois, and was in effect kidnapped back to Missouri, where he was being improperly held to slavery; the Court ruling basically said that his status as 'property' did not change just because he crossed a state border, any more than the status of any other 'property' belonging to his owner would have changed). That decision of course generated a lot of controversy, and was finally overruled, although it took the bloodiest war in our history, three Constitutional Amendments, hundreds of statutes passed pursuant to those Amendments, and thousands of court cases under those statutes to do so.

The second time the Supreme decided person-ness was in the 1880's, when a woman who had been denied admission to the Illinois bar (Illinois again!!!) challenged her rejection, arguing that her Constitutional rights had been violated. The Supreme Court ruled that, as a woman, she was not a 'person' under the Constitution entitled to equal protection, instead, women folk were better suited to (I'm paraphrasing slightly) being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen (the decision did actually include language about women's sensibilities not being suited to the rigors of law, women being better suited to 'domestic' tasks). Like Dred Scott, this decision generated a lot of controversy, although overturning it did not require a war, and it took only one (rather than three) Constitutional Amendments (currently, the majority of law students are now female, and it is projected that soon years the majority of all persons admitted to practice law in the United States will be female).

The third time the Supreme Court did it was in 1973, with Roe v. Wade. That generated a lot of controversy, which continues. It is ironic (to me) that at the time Roe v. Wade was decided, there were already movements afoot to repeal or revise the abortion laws of most states, and much progress toward that end had already been made; it was stopped in its tracks by Roe v. Wade, which of course made statutory amendments unnecessary; it is very likely that, if Roe v. Wade had never happened, all, or most of the 57 states, would by this time have probably repealed or amended their abortion laws on their own, but Roe v. Wade itself became such a touchstone that it created enormous controversy where little or none had really existed before (really, those of you old enough to remember, how often did you EVER hear the terms 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' before January 1973? There were abortion clinics in some states at that time, but how often did you hear about protests taking place at them, or, God forbid, bombings and shootings taking place?)

Some (well, one) on this Bored suggested that the abortion issue is the only thing that keeps the Republican Party viable; perhaps those five Republicans on the Supreme Court who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade were part of a conspiracy to keep the Republican Party viable for generations to come...

[danielh41]

Just when I had given up on this thread, Wintergreen went a posted the kind of thoughtful post that I had hoped to get when I first started it.

[SportsFan68]

Just when I had given up on this thread, Wintergreen went a posted the kind of thoughtful post that I had hoped to get when I first started it.

You got lots of thoughtful posts replying to the issues you posted about, DanielH, including mine. They disagreed with you, and so you chose to attack them as non-responsive. I'm OK with that. Let's move on.

[danielh41]

Just when I had given up on this thread, Wintergreen went a posted the kind of thoughtful post that I had hoped to get when I first started it.

You got lots of thoughtful posts replying to the issues you posted about, DanielH, including mine. They disagreed with you, and so you chose to attack them as non-responsive. I'm OK with that. Let's move on.

There were a few thoughtful posts at the beginning, but there were too many that didn't address the abortion issue. There were objections to my wording of "better person," attempts to deflect the abortion issue to capital punishment or to what I should do personally to support my beliefs, etc. But I had resolved to quit adding to this thread, especially after the juvenile posts of BDM ("shut the hell up," and "king of the whiners," etc.), but Wintergreen posted a very thoughtful essay. The Supreme Court's attempts to define "personhood," litmus tests for Democrat and Republicans, the arguments that those on the pro-choice and pro-life sides tend to use (many examples of which are illustrated in this thread)--these are all topics worthy of thought and consideration.

[SportsFan68]

Just when I had given up on this thread, Wintergreen went a posted the kind of thoughtful post that I had hoped to get when I first started it.

You got lots of thoughtful posts replying to the issues you posted about, DanielH, including mine. They disagreed with you, and so you chose to attack them as non-responsive. I'm OK with that. Let's move on.

There were a few thoughtful posts at the beginning, but there were too many that didn't address the abortion issue. There were objections to my wording of "better person," attempts to deflect the abortion issue to capital punishment or to what I should do personally to support my beliefs, etc. But I had resolved to quit adding to this thread, especially after the juvenile posts of BDM ("shut the hell up," and "king of the whiners," etc.), but Wintergreen posted a very thoughtful essay. The Supreme Court's attempts to define "personhood," litmus tests for Democrat and Republicans, the arguments that those on the pro-choice and pro-life sides tend to use (many examples of which are illustrated in this thread)--these are all topics worthy of thought and consideration.

In other words, Wintergreen should have started the discussion instead of you because he actually stuck to the issues you now claim were the only ones you wanted to talk about.

[frogman042]

Just when I had given up on this thread, Wintergreen went a posted the kind of thoughtful post that I had hoped to get when I first started it.

You got lots of thoughtful posts replying to the issues you posted about, DanielH, including mine. They disagreed with you, and so you chose to attack them as non-responsive. I'm OK with that. Let's move on.

There were a few thoughtful posts at the beginning, but there were too many that didn't address the abortion issue. There were objections to my wording of "better person," attempts to deflect the abortion issue to capital punishment or to what I should do personally to support my beliefs, etc. But I had resolved to quit adding to this thread, especially after the juvenile posts of BDM ("shut the hell up," and "king of the whiners," etc.), but Wintergreen posted a very thoughtful essay. The Supreme Court's attempts to define "personhood," litmus tests for Democrat and Republicans, the arguments that those on the pro-choice and pro-life sides tend to use (many examples of which are illustrated in this thread)--these are all topics worthy of thought and consideration.

This is in essence what I posted earlier - pointing out that there are numerous points in the developement process where one could be considered a person or not - including cells that have the potential of being cloned. It really is a spectrum or continuim. I was hoping Daniel would have responded to my post stating exactly where on that line he thinks a person with full rights should be located. Keeping in mind that means any 'death' from that point on should be covered by the same legal protections and inquests that we currently have. I was surprised that he never made his position clear other then somewhat equating it to attacking and killing an old woman. So, again - exactly at what point in the entire process is it a 'full person derserving full rights' and are you prepared to defend the consequences of that decision.

---Jay

[danielh41]

You got lots of thoughtful posts replying to the issues you posted about, DanielH, including mine. They disagreed with you, and so you chose to attack them as non-responsive. I'm OK with that. Let's move on.

There were a few thoughtful posts at the beginning, but there were too many that didn't address the abortion issue. There were objections to my wording of "better person," attempts to deflect the abortion issue to capital punishment or to what I should do personally to support my beliefs, etc. But I had resolved to quit adding to this thread, especially after the juvenile posts of BDM ("shut the hell up," and "king of the whiners," etc.), but Wintergreen posted a very thoughtful essay. The Supreme Court's attempts to define "personhood," litmus tests for Democrat and Republicans, the arguments that those on the pro-choice and pro-life sides tend to use (many examples of which are illustrated in this thread)--these are all topics worthy of thought and consideration.

This is in essence what I posted earlier - pointing out that there are numerous points in the developement process where one could be considered a person or not - including cells that have the potential of being cloned. It really is a spectrum or continuim. I was hoping Daniel would have responded to my post stating exactly where on that line he thinks a person with full rights should be located. Keeping in mind that means any 'death' from that point on should be covered by the same legal protections and inquests that we currently have. I was surprised that he never made his position clear other then somewhat equating it to attacking and killing an old woman. So, again - exactly at what point in the entire process is it a 'full person derserving full rights' and are you prepared to defend the consequences of that decision.

---Jay

I would argue that life begins at conception, also realizing that a great many fertilized eggs never acheive implantation or the ability to mature into a baby. But by the time that pregnancy test comes back positive, that baby, embryo, whatever-you-want-to-call-it-at-that-stage, is a living human being and should be afforded all the rights thereto.

[Bob Juch]

On "The View" the McCains said they both believe there should be abortions allowed in the cases of rape or incest.

[frogman042]

There were a few thoughtful posts at the beginning, but there were too many that didn't address the abortion issue. There were objections to my wording of "better person," attempts to deflect the abortion issue to capital punishment or to what I should do personally to support my beliefs, etc. But I had resolved to quit adding to this thread, especially after the juvenile posts of BDM ("shut the hell up," and "king of the whiners," etc.), but Wintergreen posted a very thoughtful essay. The Supreme Court's attempts to define "personhood," litmus tests for Democrat and Republicans, the arguments that those on the pro-choice and pro-life sides tend to use (many examples of which are illustrated in this thread)--these are all topics worthy of thought and consideration.

This is in essence what I posted earlier - pointing out that there are numerous points in the developement process where one could be considered a person or not - including cells that have the potential of being cloned. It really is a spectrum or continuim. I was hoping Daniel would have responded to my post stating exactly where on that line he thinks a person with full rights should be located. Keeping in mind that means any 'death' from that point on should be covered by the same legal protections and inquests that we currently have. I was surprised that he never made his position clear other then somewhat equating it to attacking and killing an old woman. So, again - exactly at what point in the entire process is it a 'full person derserving full rights' and are you prepared to defend the consequences of that decision.

---Jay

I would argue that life begins at conception, also realizing that a great many fertilized eggs never acheive implantation or the ability to mature into a baby. But by the time that pregnancy test comes back positive, that baby, embryo, whatever-you-want-to-call-it-at-that-stage, is a living human being and should be afforded all the rights thereto.

Thanks, so you think that every miscarrige should be investigated to the same extent as, for example, every SIDS case. If the mother was found to have done anything that contributed to the miscarrage (taking medications, being involved in traffic accident where she was responsible and a consequence was a miscarrige, etc), then it is possible that she could be brought up on manslaughter/negligent homicide charges?

If you don't think the above should be done, then in essence, I would argue that you think that there is still a distinction between an embryo and a baby.

---Jay

[danielh41]

On "The View" the McCains said they both believe there should be abortions allowed in the cases of rape or incest.

And I disagree with that. If the baby has the right to life, what difference does it make how it was conceived? Most pro-life people hurt their own argument by making this exception.

[peacock2121]

On "The View" the McCains said they both believe there should be abortions allowed in the cases of rape or incest.

And I disagree with that. If the baby has the right to life, what difference does it make how it was conceived? Most pro-life people hurt their own argument by making this exception.

Maybe it's not that they hurt their argument as much as they illuminate their own hypocrisy.

[danielh41]

This is in essence what I posted earlier - pointing out that there are numerous points in the developement process where one could be considered a person or not - including cells that have the potential of being cloned. It really is a spectrum or continuim. I was hoping Daniel would have responded to my post stating exactly where on that line he thinks a person with full rights should be located. Keeping in mind that means any 'death' from that point on should be covered by the same legal protections and inquests that we currently have. I was surprised that he never made his position clear other then somewhat equating it to attacking and killing an old woman. So, again - exactly at what point in the entire process is it a 'full person derserving full rights' and are you prepared to defend the consequences of that decision.

---Jay

I would argue that life begins at conception, also realizing that a great many fertilized eggs never acheive implantation or the ability to mature into a baby. But by the time that pregnancy test comes back positive, that baby, embryo, whatever-you-want-to-call-it-at-that-stage, is a living human being and should be afforded all the rights thereto.

Thanks, so you think that every miscarrige should be investigated to the same extent as, for example, every SIDS case. If the mother was found to have done anything that contributed to the miscarrage (taking medications, being involved in traffic accident where she was responsible and a consequence was a miscarrige, etc), then it is possible that she could be brought up on manslaughter/negligent homicide charges?

If you don't think the above should be done, then in essence, I would argue that you think that there is still a distinction between an embryo and a baby.

---Jay

If there is evidence on drug abuse on the part of the mother then an investigation/charges might be warranted. But given the fragile nature of life at that stage, some practicality has to be taken into consideration. If a otherwise healthy 100 year old person dies in his sleep, that is not given the same level of investigation as a healthy 30 year old dying in his sleep.

[Jeemie]

Thanks, so you think that every miscarrige should be investigated to the same extent as, for example, every SIDS case. If the mother was found to have done anything that contributed to the miscarrage (taking medications, being involved in traffic accident where she was responsible and a consequence was a miscarrige, etc), then it is possible that she could be brought up on manslaughter/negligent homicide charges?

If you don't think the above should be done, then in essence, I would argue that you think that there is still a distinction between an embryo and a baby.

---Jay

Not at all.

The above argument rests on the misconception that our science is sophisticated enough to render such a judgement unequivocally.

[wintergreen48]

On "The View" the McCains said they both believe there should be abortions allowed in the cases of rape or incest.

And I disagree with that. If the baby has the right to life, what difference does it make how it was conceived? Most pro-life people hurt their own argument by making this exception.

Maybe it's not that they hurt their argument as much as they illuminate their own hypocrisy.

I don't think it is a question of hypocrisy (which usually means saying one thing and doing another), but more just a inconsistency that results from not thinking something through all the way.

[peacock2121]

And I disagree with that. If the baby has the right to life, what difference does it make how it was conceived? Most pro-life people hurt their own argument by making this exception.

Maybe it's not that they hurt their argument as much as they illuminate their own hypocrisy.

I don't think it is a question of hypocrisy (which usually means saying one thing and doing another), but more just a inconsistency that results from not thinking something through all the way.

I use this defintion:

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess

If one believes that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder of the innocent - then having abortion be okay in any instance is hypocritical.

I don't have a real problem with hypocrisy - I have it about the death penalty. I am against the death penalty. If someone killed Pealette - I would want them fried.

Being honest about ones hypocrisy has value.

[Bob Juch]

On "The View" the McCains said they both believe there should be abortions allowed in the cases of rape or incest.

And I disagree with that. If the baby has the right to life, what difference does it make how it was conceived? Most pro-life people hurt their own argument by making this exception.

From the McCains' statements today, I would say they do not support overturning Roe vs. Wade.

[Bob78164]

And I disagree with that. If the baby has the right to life, what difference does it make how it was conceived? Most pro-life people hurt their own argument by making this exception.

Maybe it's not that they hurt their argument as much as they illuminate their own hypocrisy.

I don't think it is a question of hypocrisy (which usually means saying one thing and doing another), but more just a inconsistency that results from not thinking something through all the way.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I think it's because folks are asking the wrong question, though. I'll elaborate in a new thread. --Bob