Rosemary, if you expect always to speak your exact convictions or feelings, you're likely to offend an awful lot of people. Hypocrisy -- whose etymology from Greek makes it "the reason beneath" -- is often a tool of courteous dealing. One of the cardinal rules of social grace is that no gentleman or lady ever gives offense intentionally. Therefore, when it's necessary to decline a request or an invitation from someone you entirely detest, you can't simply say, "I'm sorry, but I consider you lower than whale dung." You have to come up with something a bit milder, for instance, "I'd love to, but I expect to be unavailable."

Neal Stephenson, in his novel The Diamond Age, gives us a magnificent exegesis on hypocrisy as a social lubricant and an essential support of the norms of decency and civility. Here it is, from the mouth of a "NeoVictorian," Lord Finkle-McGraw:

BEGIN CITATION:

"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of climate, you are not allowed to criticise others -- after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?...

"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all the vices. For, you see, if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour -- you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all the political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

"You wouldn't believe the things they said about the original Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi....

"Because they were hypocrites... the Victorians were despised in the late Twentieth Century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves -- they took no moral stances and lived by none."

"So they were morally superior to the Victorians -- " Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.

"-- even though -- in fact, because -- they had no morals at all."

"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late Twentieth Century Weltanschaaung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception -- he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course. most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."

"That we occasionally violate our own moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."

"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved -- the missteps we make along the way -- are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power."

END CITATION

Hypocrisy in politics is less forgivable. But it's understandable, as politicians are always struggling over the unaffiliated middle of the political spectrum. An example would be good here. A politician facing an election wants to:
1. Energize his core supporters,
2. Dishearten his opponent's core supporters,
3. Leave the middle with reasons to consider him and no reason to despise him.

So, he'll naturally cast his statements in the form most suitable to those three audiences, according to which audience he intends to address at any moment. If he's of the "liberal" persuasion:
1. When talking to audiences in San Francisco or Manhattan, where his natural core is dominant, he'll pump the central left-wing tropes and assail his opponent for his "lack of compassion" or his "ties to Big Business."
2. When talking to audiences in Houston or Albuquerque, where his natural core is thin on the ground and his listeners are more likely to be dubious about him, he'll try to insinuate in his audience's thoughts the reasons why his opponent might not be all he's cracked up to be.
3. When talking to an audiences in a more evenly balanced region -- Chicago, perhaps? -- he'll tend to emphasize particular features of his proposals that that audience would find attractive, and steer clear of partisan rhetoric or assaults on his opponent.

You can rewrite this script for a politician of any stripe.

Is it hypocrisy? Do politicians routinely suppress their real convictions and the reasons for them? I'm not sure. I'd say their behavior is sui generis, a form of behavior that occurs only in the political realm.

And by the way, with regard to folks who condemn abortion but would not support a legal ban on all abortions, there are strong and logically consistent reasons for doing so. I should know, as I'm one of them. You might want to give the matter more thought before dismissing me, or people whose convictions march with mine, as mere "hypocrites."

Francis:

I did not say that people who condemn abortion but would not support a legal ban are hypocrites.

Because I am one of those people as well.

I am talking about the strident Pro-choice marcher. Just like I was talking about Anti-war activists.

I said that it is hypocritical to be a mouthpiece for something that you yourself don't believe in.

I stand by that.

If everyone is going to continue to interpret me rather than actually read me. It's gonna be a long argument.

Forgive me if I overreacted, but your original comment:

'I said that people who say things like this: "I could never have an abortion myself but who am I to tell you that you can't or that it's wrong" are being hypocitical [sic].'

...doesn't say what your clarification does. The person making that inner-quoted statement could be validly accused of insincerity -- hypocrisy -- only if she really would have an abortion herself, or if she disbelieved her own stated position -- i.e., if she really did feel she had the moral authority to declare abortion wrong and to demand that it be outlawed. Normally, a willingness to tolerate others whose views diverge from one's own is considered evidence of sincerity, just as the law recognizes a statement against one's own interests to have more probative value than a statement that's aligned with and supportive of one's own interests.

Abortion is a contentious topic; I'm not the only reader likely to take exception to your original comment. And we all "interpret," which is merely the examination of a statement in search of its extended meaning. That's in the nature of language and its uses.

The really interesting aspects of hypocrisy in the political sphere just now are the attempt by the anti-war Left to slur the Bush Administration with it, while simultaneously avoiding entirely the matter of:
1) whether Saddam Hussein had some sort of right to be left in power,
2) whether it was defensible that he be deposed by American power, despite the opposition of several other major nations, and:
3) whether the Iraqi people are and will be better off or worse off, now that the Baathist yoke has been lifted from their necks.

I understand what you are saying - that is why I went back and clarified my statement further.

I forget that most of you don't know me personally and I make assumptions that I shouldn't.

I made further clarification in the comments section. So I didn't realize that I needed to clarify my meaning until you responded.

I'm much better at this verbally in a debate forum than I am in the written word. I know that may seem backward - but I am just better on my feet so to speak.

What set me off was watching the Dixie Chicks on Thursday night. Then I started seething. Hillary Clinton sprang to mind because I once heard her say something like what I originally wrote on the abortion issue. I was a Democrat back then and I thought that she was exercising in hypocrisy then.
It annoyed me and I never forgot it.
I've heard others say it and it always struck me funny.

"Who am I to impose my morality on you?" That sentence is ironic because it happens all the time.

I am a citizen of this country and if enough of us agree that something is wrong then laws get written to change it. Murder is widely accepted as wrong - that is a moral judgement. Same with rape...

Most laws are the result of someones morality being imposed on someone else.

Rosemary,

I have no such moral or political ambiguities such as a see being slung around here in this topic.

I support "our troops" (as they lately seem to be referred to in some nebulous fashion), largely because 50 years ago I was one of our troops, preparing to kill or be killed in our now-forgotten war in Korea. Luckily for me, the shooting stopped just as military orders were being cut that would send me to USAFFE (United States Armed Forces Far East). So I spent the next two years at US Army bases in the US rather than in Frozen Chosen.

I also supported the recent war in Iraq, because I thought that a victorious outcome was in the interests of the United States. And like Dean, I am developing some expectations that the presence of the United States might in fact bring some decency, stability and civil liberties as we know them into the tortured lives of the people of Iraq.

I don't really give a damn what anyone else thinks about my support for the United States Army and the victory of the United States government. End of story.

Although I identify with the right wing on most issues, I part company with them over abortion. I support unlimited abortion rights for women in general, and for my wife and daughter in particular, for the same reason that I support unlimited gun rights for all other law abiding American citizens in general and for me in particular. Both choices involve individual civil liberties that I will not compromise.

My wife, having given birth to four children, is beyond her child-bearing years. If we had received competent information that the birth of any one of those children would have been dangerous to my wife's health, or would have produced a less-than-viable baby, I would have counseled her to abort it. Because I value the life and health of my life above that of any fetus.

If my daughter were raped, and should daughter choose to abort the result of that rape and never let it come to life, I would support her decision.

I really don't give a damn what anyone else thinks about my support for abortion and for any women to control her reproductive processes without any outside interference. End of story.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold,

Please don't take this as an insult, because it is quite honestly not meant as one, but it is very odd for you to say you don't care about other people's opinions after giving your own -- why do you think that we care about yours?

In a similar manner to you, I really don't give a damn what people think about my hatred of abortion* and of any woman who would kill the child in her womb for no good reason.

But who does it benefit for us to go about pronouncing are unconcern for the opinions of the world or even for those of the person hosting our comments?

The thing which makes abortion so controversial, and -- I believe -- supports Rosemary's point is that it is not a question of rights but of status. The question of abortion is the question of whether a fetus is a human being. This is why it is a black-and-white issue without real compromise positions. If a fetus is a human being, the excuses for killing it are the same before it is born as after it is born, and no more. If a fetus is not, no reasonable person will care any more than a person will care if a woman gets a mole removed or her hair cut.

If you think that a fetus is a human being, but don't think that you should protect them when they are in anyone else's womb, you are a hypocrit as much as thinking that black people are equal but happily countenancing discrimination such as bus-segregation.

*Note: I believe that abortion is just like any other sort of homicide and that as such, all exceptions to homicide-is-murder (e.g. self defense) are also exceptions to abortion-is-murder.

Chris, you are correct in that it is impolite for me to offer my opinions to others with a closing comment that I am not interested in what these same others think of my comment, reasoning processes, or whatever. So I was wrong. You may argue with me, politely. And I will respond to you, equally politely.

But to get to the heart of the matter: There are those who believe an embryo or fetus is a human being and as such, is entitled to legal protection as defined under the United States Constitution. I presume from your comments that your are one such person.

There also are those who believe no such thing, and I am one of them. I am in fact a nonbeliever. Meaning that I reject opinions or even full-blown philosophies based on beliefs sustained solely by what is claimed to be divine purpose, admonishment, espected intervention, witnesses who claimed to have seen miracles that I have not experienced, etc.

The arguments that I present below are based largely on the literature of objectivism, a philosophy which strongly influences my life and actions. I freely admit this so that no one will accuse me of plagiarism.

In my reasoning (by which I mean judgement based on observable fact), a human embryo is merely a mass of protoplasm which exists solely as part of a woman's body. It does not and cannot exist independent of that woman's body, because

"That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual."

By my standards, a fetus has no independent rights any more than a person's wisdom tooth or thumb. The fetus acquires these rights solely by being born. I hold this to be a self-evident truth even if the fetus has 10 miniature fingers and toes, can wiggle them, can be seen sucking one of its thumbs, can generate brain waves and an audible heart beat. It is not an independent human being until it emerges from the host's birth canal and draws breath.

"Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born".

As you stated, this definition of status is exactly what makes the question of abortion unresolvable. About half the population is secular and supports this position, and the other half derives its rules from religious sources. This is why Roe v Wade, the 1973 US Supreme Court decision, probably shall never be revoked.

And in any case, the ace in the hole for the pro-abortion rights camp is the growing availability of Mifepristone (RU-486) which provides women who wish to terminate their own pregnancies the means to do so safely and in the privacy of their own homes. No more howling mobs outside abortion clinics or terrorists murdering physicians who provide abortions.

I would also like to bring to your attention, or remind you if you were not aware of it, that there are societies all around Europe in which midwives fulfill the function of determining whether babies, after they emerge from the womb, shall live or die. Most of these are Catholic countries such as Croatia, where my wife was born.

In villages all around these countries, midwives performs the role of attending physicians. If the newborn infant has serious and obvious defects, the midwife, in another room out of sight and earshot of the mother, ends it. She then returns to the birth room and sorrowfully informs the mother that the baby did not live. Everyone prays, a village funeral is held. Then the villagers get back to their daily routine.

Hypocrisy? You bet. But life is tough all around in Balkan villages, and the community has no means of supporting a population of the developmentally disabled. Moreover, it is considered an act of supreme mercy on behalf of the mother. This is as it has been done for thousands of years. Certainly before the coming of Christianity. And this too is a piece of unvarnished reality.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold,

Believing that a fetus is of some other species -- it's definitely alive, and it's definitely not part of the mother from any medical viewpoint which makes sense (differen DNA, a different circulatory system, a different nervous system, in fact, absolutely nothing in common with the mother) -- is not a religious versus secular argument, but just an argument in itself. So far as I know, the bible doesn't comment on whether a fetus is a human being or some other species (literal interpretations of poetry aside).

I'm curious, though: what do you think of killing those on life support in a hospital? I don't mean someone choosing to gracefully end it, I mean walking up and just literally pulling the plug for fun (call it hunting). If a fetus has no rights because it requires life support, why would someone who's dry on the outside have rights despite needing life support to stay alive?

I don't want to get into this debate here (I don't think that Dean cares for it), though if you have a blog I'll happily take you on this discussion in cross-blog posting, but I would just like to state that I don't believe that a fetus is a person because Jesus told me so (so far as I know, he didn't). Rather, I believe it because of (rather secular) logical arguments.

Of course, if you believe that rights are a practical concession given to those who can defend them, there's no point in our discussing the matter. To make that concrete, if you believe that anyone who can't defend themselves should be killable (or perhaps those who can't vote, or some other heuristic that fully allows the killing of the mentally ill or the physically deformed) I don't think that we have enough common ground to make further discussion profitable.

Chris,

You knew very well when you read my last comment that I did not write or even imply that an embryo or fetus is a species different from the woman who is growing it. Therefore it is obvious that you could not resist the opportunity to depress what began as a serious discussion down to a sophomoric level.

The embryo/fetus is in fact a part of the woman's body until it is ready to be born, in physical fact as well as from the medical viewpoint. Which is why pregnant woman who indulge in liquor, drugs or smoking frequently damage the embryo, if it happens during the first trimester of pregnancy, or the fetus in the second or third trimesters.

The system of ethics that I find acceptable and reasonable is that any woman has the right -- and the sole right -- to determine whether it is in her physical, economic, emotional and medical interest to terminate her pregnancy. Further, if she can ascertain in advance that her fetus is not likely to be born as a normal, healthy child, than she alone must have the right to determine if giving birth under such circumstances will cause two lifetimes of endless grief -- her's and her child's.

Under these circumstances, the policy I espouse is that of pro-life while those who would strip the woman of these rights is merely pro-dogma.

I am certain that the viewpoint I have described above is supported by the majority of American women, even if they never intend to have an abortion, and probably by the majority of the population as a whole. Otherwise, it is doubtful that Roe v Wade would have stood as national policy for 30 years. No matter what, few women in this country wish to return to the era of the back-alley abortionists or travel to a foreign country for a medical procedure that can be accomplished simply and safely at her own physician's office.

As for "killing those on life support in a hospital", "pulling the plug for fun (call it hunting", and other off-the-wall comment you made,what in hell are you talking about, Chris?

Let's turn this argument around. Does a person have the civil liberty of ending his or her own life? Even if you might find suicide difficult to understand or even repugnant, some lives approach their end in great physical or emotional pain and suffering. Do they or do they not have this right, Chris?

As for maintaining terminally ill patients where there is no hope of recovery, how long would you insist that a body be kept alive in vegetative state? I would say that if the patient has insurance coverage or family support, and he or she has left written instructions that his body be kept alive indefinitely, that the hospital in question has a contractual obligation to continue it. If not, then common sense would dictate terminating life support. In any case, is this not the procedure now commonly practiced?

I have no blogsite, Chris. If you have one and if you wish to continue this discussion elsewhere than on Dean's World, that is up to you. I have no idea whether we have any common ground in regard to the question of abortion, and it is also up to you to determine whether you wish to terminate this discussion on that ground. If you are opposed to abortion rights, then you shall never change my mind, Chris, because as a gun owner and a husband, I subscribe to two policies that are based on consistent and mutually supportive philosophical foundations:

1) "If you don't like guns, don't own one."

2) "If you don't like abortions, don't have one."

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Dean's World is a forum to discuss things. As long as the debate is not a flame fest. You should feel free to discuss as you will.

Now,

The embryo/fetus is in fact a part of the woman's body until it is ready to be born, in physical fact as well as from the medical viewpoint. Which is why pregnant woman who indulge in liquor, drugs or smoking frequently damage the embryo, if it happens during the first trimester of pregnancy, or the fetus in the second or third trimesters.

No, in fact, it is not. Not in medical viewpoint and not in the physical either.

It is an entirely separate entity that resides within the uterus. It has a completely different DNA, many times a different blood type and often times a PENIS. Most women don't have penis's that is how you can tell the difference.

Damage doesn't usually happen by the third trimester from smoking or alcohol unless it is abused because of course the fetus is getting it's sustanance from the mother. Once the fetus is capable of living without its mother or becomes viable in medical terms it is considered a separate life - medically. That usually occurs in the second trimester.

Learned that in Medical School - where by the way I maintained a 4.0 gpa - not that it matters but I like bragging a bit.

Just because doctors will perform abortions beyond viability doesn't mean they think of a fetus as a growth or imposition on the woman - it is because the law madates that they do. They can actually lose their jobs and their practice if they refuse.

Well, Rosemary...

I didn't know any of that, including you being an MD. Moreover, I never had an opportunity or the equipment to get pregnant. So all an abortion could do for me is rid me of a layer of fat or so, and save me from some fitness center treadmill time.

What's this about most women not having a penis? Isn't this like saying most birds don't have gills and most fish don't have fur?

Hopefully, I haven't flamed anybody over the question of abortion. Or guns, for that matter.

What about all this propaganda we are bombarded with about pregnant women who drink, smoke, snort or shoot up, bringing forth mongoloids thereby?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

What's this about most women not having a penis?

My point being that by 9 weeks - if a woman is pregnant with a son - he already has a penis. That penis would be his not his mother's. I was pointing out the separate entity thing...

I'm not actually an MD - I'm actually a med school drop-out. I changed my mind a little more than halfway through. Broke the heart of my favorite instructor (a surgeon). He thought I was gonna be a brilliant surgeon. I have incredibly steady hands. But that is another story.

What about all this propaganda we are bombarded with about pregnant women who drink, smoke, snort or shoot up, bringing forth mongoloids thereby?

Most damage occurs in the embryonic stage. But if the woman is an addict who continuse to ABUSE the hard stuff then other bad, bad things will happen later on. Same with anything - if you abuse it. Only because the umbilical feeds the placenta and that is where the embryo/fetus is borrowing from it's host/mother.

The events of the six-week embryonic stage include differentiation of germ layers into specific body cavities and the formation of the placenta, the umbilical cord, and the embryonic membranes which provide sustenance and protection to the embryo. The embryonic stage lasts from the beginning of the third week to the end of the eighth week. At this stage, the developing organism is referred to as an embryo. During the embryonic stage, all of the body will form. While the events are forming the body within the embryo, a complex system of extraembryonic membranes also develop. The amnion is derived from ectoderm and mesoderm around the embryo forming a sac filled with fluid. The yolk sac is established during the second week and although it has no nutritive value, it is essential for embryonic development. The umbilical cord forms as the yolk sac shrinks and usually attaches near the center of the placenta. It contains two umbilical arteries and one umbilical vein which twists because it is longer than the arteries. The arteries carry deoxygenated blood toward the placenta, and the umbilical vein carries oxygenated blood from the placenta to the embryo. Early in the third week, a linear band known as the primitive streak appears along the dorsal midline of the embryonic disc, and establishes a structural foundation for development along a longitudinal axis, and will eventually give rise to the notochord, a primitive beginning of skeletal development. During the fourth week, the embryo increases in size and develops a connecting body stalk from the embryonic body to the placenta. By this time, the heart is developed and beating, pumping blood to all parts of the embryo. The head and jaws are apparent, and the primitive tissue that will form the eyes, mouth, brain, spinal cord, lungs, and digestive tissue has developed. The arm and leg buds are recognizable as small swellings on lateral body walls. The developing brain and spinal cord comes from the neural tube and develops rudimentary segments called somites which will become the vertebral column. Branchial arches develop about the neck area resembling gills. The most precarious time of prenatal development is during the embryonic stage of development. For this reason, it is critical that the mother take extremely good care of herself if she believes she is pregnant. Drugs - hard ones like crack, coke, heroin, pills and heavy , heavy doses of alcohol can really cause damage when all organs are developing.

I'm not sure how much I believe about the smoking thing though because in the 50's-70's smoking was normal and babies weren't all freaky and retarded.

Occasional drinking is okay and after an amniocentesis a glass of red wine is actually recommended. My sister-in-law smoked she cut back but she did smoke and gave birth to a 8lb 14oz healthy baby girl.

I had a couple of drinks throughout my pregnancy - my OB said it was fine. I smoked at the end of my pregnancy - hormones allowed me to believe I could "shrink" my baby a little cuz I was getting REALLY BIG. It didn't work - Jake was born at 10 lbs 4oz. 'Course, maybe it did shrink him...

Sorry to have disappeared, and I didn't mean to take the discussion to sophomoric levels. THe way that I see it, the decision tree goes like this:

Is a Fetus alive? Yes.

Is the fetus part of the mother? No. It has different DNA, and as it develops, every bodily system (circulatory, nervous, etc.) is completely separate from the mother. Rosemary elaborated on this quite well (Btw, Rosemary, if that was from memory I'm extremely impressed).

Is the Fetus human?
Yes -> Abortion == bad.
No -> It's got to be some species, so what is it?

Frankly, abortion requires far too magical a view of the universe where somehow a soul goes rushing into the critter as it passes through the vagina or out a cut in the uterus. Perhaps I do not have a magical enough view of the universe, but I always took the idea of God breathing life into the clay to be metaphor, not literally true with a few details wrong (God breathing life into the formed lump of flesh, not formed lump of clay).

Since I don't think that anyone is actually going to propound the magic species-switching trick, I'm forced to conclude that the way to maintain abortion as legal is to view all human rights as some form of legal pleasantry (perhaps a useful legal fiction since people are more productive when free and with rights, and we all like a healthy economy).

Btw, though I don't know that any scientists or medical professionals would describe it this way, a fetus is really a type of parasite. It attaches to a soft spot on the mother and sucks nutrients out of her. It just so happens that women are built to accomodate these parasites.

That was all from memory.

Thanks for being impressed - I like impressing people. :)

I spent a lot of money to acquire that info so I intend on keeping and using it whenever possible!

I'm pretty much on Chris' wavelength.

I think with abortion, you have a reasonable time where you have a window to act. After that point, you have made your decision, and only life-threatening circumstances should be allowed.

Of course someone always wants to come along and say that because I'm a man I can't say that. But that's misandrist nonsense--not only have I been in utero myself, I've seen, heard, and felt my child in my wife's uterus. Anyone who says I have no right to an opinion is a misandrist twit.

There comes a point where you have to be allowed to say, "LOOK, you MADE YOUR CHOICE, you had a reasonable chance to abort. Now, unless there's some pretty serious risks here--no namby pamby meaningless phrase like "health," which could mean anything, but let's talk serious life-threatening circumstances here--you made your choice, you took your gamble.

The problem is that I honestly believe--no, I KNOW--most women as well as most men could live with that. Unfortunately, the extremists make such compromises impossible. That and the unconscionable Roe v. Wade decision.