FoolThemAll

It's better not to assume that there can be only one particular mindset behind an opinion. You'll be wrong more often than not.

But, fair enough, here it is:

One can be pro-death penalty and anti-choice and retain consistency. "The z/e/f is a human being that has done nothing to deserve death, while the death row inmate's actions justify the taking of his life."

One can be pro-war to most degrees and anti-choice and retain consistency. "Except for the extreme minority case, abortion does nothing to protect human rights or human lives. War, although it will likely take innocent lives, is sometimes justified by its long-term defense of rights and lives."

One can be against the redistribution of wealth while being anti-choice and retain consistency. "The government's role is to protect rights. We have a right to life, but not a right to a comfortable life. Comfort requires labor, and if ceasing to labor doesn't destroy a right, then this 'right' will likely require a kind of slavery." Randian, I know. The point is, there's consistency.

And here's my speculation on the "sanctity of life" you ascribe to anti-choicers: it doesn't require the absence of any killing. On the contrary, defense of the sanctity of life sometimes requires killing. It's practical, rather than idealistic. It recognizes that one must sometimes make a choice between two bad options. If that doesn't sound like 'sanctity' to you, fine, call it something else. It's just a label. I speculate that they don't mean a sanctity so absolute that self-defense is off-limits.

It also doesn't require government-ensured quality of life. From what I've heard and seen, the preferred route is voluntary charities.

A sanctity-devoid antichoice position might look something like this: "Human beings have a right to life. You need a very good justification, most likely based on defending this right, to violate this right. Oh, and the z/e/f is a human being." (Is that last sentence where you think the sanctity must lie?)

I'm sure that there are hypocritical pro-lifers out there. But even then, what is gained in the argument by pointing out such hypocrisy? You show merely that they are wrong about at least one of their positions, but hypocrisy can't point to the error. You're left wagging your finger not at the pro-life position, but at the pro-lifer, and there's plenty more where he came from.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.