re: #656 shortshrift

The pro-choice argument that pro-lifers are inconsistent because they support the death penalty is exactly canceled by the pro-lifers argument that the pro-choicers are inconsistent because they are against the death penalty. Then the argument shifts to innocent baby versus convicted criminal. Thereafter it moves to “baby” versus collection of cells, miscarriage of due process versus justice being done.

Abortion, euthanasia, death penalty - all hard cases of justifiable (or not) homicide. Our culture is moving from no, no, yes (conservative) to yes, yes, no (liberal). Yes, yes, yes would be the libertarian (small l) point of view, no, no, no would find favor among many religious Christians.

I hope I have offended nobody, but that is where consistency considerations take you politically!

shortshrift: That’s an interesting point, but I say the conservative/liberal divide you posit is a lot more complicated than that.

For instance, the most basic, rock-solid attribute of conservatism, to me, is non-intrusion of government into personal and private matters.

How on earth did this get transformed into a crusade for the government to control, absolutely, the beginning and end of life, excluding from the process (a) women who would be forced to bear children against their will, and (b) terminally ill individuals who would be forced to live in pain beyond any hope of recovery?

What is more personal and private than a human being’s own body?