It seems no matter how many times I hear it, it still just amazes me. How could a person with out hesitation be for abortion, and at the same time, be against putting a murdering psyco to death? Its like this place has become bizzaro world.

That's an exaggeration. I don't think I know anyone that is for abortion (maybe minus the practitioner); I'd imagine even most of the mothers who go through with it harbor some kind of guilt of one form or another. Like myself, many people are pro-choice because outlawing all forms of abortion only cause greater harm to life than good. On the other hand, I see it as a great hypocrisy for some so-called "pro-lifers" to be strictly against the destruction of zygotes and stem cells at the expense of the lives of countless adults, and while feeling no hesitation toward war or the destruction of the environment, no hesitation toward the killing of someone stealing property, or the killing of criminals, and no hesitation toward killing nearly every kind of animal from rodents to cows in a systematic and inhumane system of consumerism.

I only advocate outlawing abortions as contraception. That's just asinine. But war is necessary...sometimes.

If it's "my" property, I should be able to defend it. But cops shouldn't ust have the free authority to shoot a person dead just because they won't stop when they tell them to.

Animals are animals...But we shouldn't slaughter all of them until they are all gone. And there should be enough habitat left for them.

There's a middle ground for everything IMHO.

Abortion facts...
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Hilarious.

No hypocrisy on the pro-abort side... Promoting "safe sex" while totaly ignoring the most obvious form of birth control: abstinence. Claiming to care about the woman while their "free sex" message has done more to harm women (unwanted preganancy, proliferation of pornography, reducing women to only their physical appearance, promotion of homosexuality, separating womanhood from motherhood, denigrating the traditional family) than any other ideology in human history.

As for the rest of your non-sequitor - I'm not sure what abortion has to do with stealing but I don't believe there has ever been a death penalty sentence in the US for stealing (heck even in Islamic law they only cut off a hand).

Neither do I understand what abortion has to do with consumerism (except for the contrived demand that has resulted from the pro-abort propaganda that so many unfortunate young women have fallen for). Obviously you believe in consumerism or you wouldn't be typing your ill-informed rants on a shiny new computer via some internet service provider.

Now THERE's a little hypocrisy for ya.....

It's not only Texas where a homeowner has the right to defend his property by deadly force. And police killing people for simply running from the scene of the crime is becoming more and more common.

Not sure what you're talking about there. Based on fxashun's response I'm assuming you are referring to a person's right to defend themself.

If an intruder breaks into my house, I am not going to wait to ask his intentions or to see if he has a gun. The very act of breaking and entering is an agressive act and grounds for self defense.

I always get concerned about people who try to use dehumanising terms as part of a "rational" argument. That's the way the Nazi's encouraged anti-Jewish feeling, by suggesting it didn't really matter as the weren't even human.

Does that make you feel better, calling a baby a "zef"? Doeas it help you convince yourself that you are not talking about a human being, a citizen, a member of society? Next thing you will be telling us that it doesn't count unless you personally recognise them as such. That it's OK to kill if you don't see the humanity.

So someone can be against the killing of millions of completely innocent babies who are disposed of for no reason other than expediency while being in favour of the killing of convicted murderers who have deliberately committed actions which have led them into that position, and you find that morally hypocritical? Seriously?

You equate the execution of murderers with the slaughter of livestock for food while condoning the killing of babies and simultaneously attempt to hold the moral high ground? That's some impressive piece of doublethink.