[WillPostForFood]

That's inconsistency, not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is someone who is anti-abortion, but would get an abortion because they had a trip to Hawaii planned, or is anti-execution, but is pushing a prosecutor to go for the death penalty in the case of their child's murder.

But I do agree that there is a case to be made to work those people, if their views align with yours, even though they are personally hypocrites. On the other hand, maybe not the most trustworthy allies.

[specialist]

Thank you. I've been chewing on this. You're right. I need to learn to see the difference, and maybe be less judgmental.

It's almost inconceivable to me that someone(s) can be both anti-abortion and pro-execution without some deeper, darker, cynical motivator.

Huh. Again, thank you.

[Arizhel]

The problem is that you're assuming that all life is equally valuable. That's a flawed assumption, and is not true of people who are simultaneously anti-abortion and pro-execution. To them, unborn fetuses are innocent, whereas convicted criminals are not. So it's wrong to "execute" unborn fetuses, who haven't committed any crimes, whereas convicted criminals aren't innocent at all, and are fair game for execution.

[WillPostForFood]

Can I ask you a question then? If you feel there is a conflict in being anti-abortion and pro-execution, wouldn't that equally apply to people who are pro-abortion and anti-execution?

I don't think there is a conflict with either position because they are vastly different scenarios, and neither side is basing their argument on an absolute position on the value of all life in all circumstances. A good example would be: Someone who opposes kidnapping, but supports imprisoning criminals. Those positions are not in conflict, even though prison is just legal kidnapping.

[specialist]

My position, as much as possible, is harm reduction. I favor reasonable measures to reduce abortions, reduce executions.