Jim, I like your posts, and the attitude you show. But you really need to learn to discern the difference between strong opinions based on years of activism, and claims to be the arbitor of what constitutes a true pro life position. It is the mark of intellectual weakness to attack on a personal level that which you cannot refute.

The Pro Life movement respects life at all phases, from cradle to death. That was the cornerstone that it built itself on. That is until the right wingers took it over. Then, mysteriously, it turned into an anti-abortion movement. That is the time when, IMO, hypocrisy crept in. I see this a lot among the conservative leadership. They claim to have values, and to stand for what is moral ...... until it inconveniences them, or some of their money contributors. Want a view of their fluid values? How about the Delay mess? When it was Bill Clinton and company, they supposedly stood for ethical behaviour. When it was one of their own? Change the rules. How about the Texas redistricting? When you can't win on your positions, gerrymander. How about Newt Gingrich? Stand for morality in all things, except your personal life i.e. have affair and divorce wife on her sickbed. How about Rush Limbaugh? Shoot your mouth off all day about liberal lack of values, then get busted for dope.

I don't claim to be the arbitor, just a fella who doesn't like hypocrites.

And thanks for answering the death penalty/pro life question.

Mick