To answer your question: I am Pro-choice on the level of legislation, and Pro-life in how these freedoms are used so they are never abused to terminate life unnaturally. This includes being pro-choice in abortion (unless all parties agree to a law restricting choice) and pro-choice for the death penalty and for use of military for war. Because I believe these things can be prevented more effectively without making them illegal (unless all parties agree).
The choices must always exist in order to be constitutionally inclusive of all views; but ideally the choices would never be invoked. I believe we can better work toward correction and prevention in a pro-choice setting, where we have freedom to solve the problems directly which we oppose, instead of relying on govt legislation to ban it. Only where people reach consensus on a religious matter would I say that a law supporting that is constitutional; if a law excludes or discriminates against a belief or imposes a religious bias, that conflict would have to be resolved first.
Trying to find clarity. Recently I have been involved in talks with people who claim to be "Pro-Life" in the "Anti-Abortion issue". Yet these people supported the war in Iraq, or support the death penalty.
It seems to me that if you are "Pro-Life" you are against war of any kind for any reason, against the death penalty in any form or for any reason, against leathal self defense, and a vegetarian. Anything other than that you are "Anti-something" i.e. anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, or anti war.
To all the pro-lifers please get your lable right as you tend to confuse others by mislabling yourself as pro life when you are not pro life at all, but anti abortion.
This gets me to thinking, I wonder how many people are actually "Pro life" instead of Anti-abortion?
Hi Spectrum: There are 3 or 4 different arguments in your statements I would delineate from each other:
A. if you can be pro-life in the abortion debate, and yet support military, death penalty, etc. in other cases (I believe you can, just like different denominations of any belief, even atheism has different types!)
B. if you are against abortion itself and this is why you support some laws and oppose others
C. you are against pro-choice legislation and against pro-choice activists and their agenda
D. if you are against abortion or pro-life personally, but pro-choice in terms of legislative powers of government to make policies for all people
A. first I believe people can be pro-life in some areas and not others. it's not that they are not pro-life but there are varying degrees or applications of it. Yes, I'd rather people be consistent. The way I would be consistent in all areas is to support the CHOICE of something LEGALLY (by constitutional equal protection of all beliefs without abridging or imposing a religious bias by govt - unless ALL PEOPLE consent to a religious law such as against murder which is one example of where people agree and don't argue about laws)
So you can support the choice of war and military and guns, but be against war and killing and only support these for defense to prevent war and killing; you can support the choice of the death penalty constitutionally but be against the application of it; you can support the choice of abortion constitutionally but be against the actual need to ever use it etc.
B or C. by pro-life this can mean you are against abortion (anti-abortion) or against the pro-choice legislation and politics and people (anti-choice). I even met one pro-life activist who was not so much into preventing abortion, but wanted to make a statement about the life of the child and to oppose the idea of women having the right to terminate that; he even admitted that if working together would prevent abortions and save lives, that is not his point, his point was to oppose the idea of putting women before the children, of not recognizing the life of the child equally.
D. I believe most people are actually this level. Nobody wants abortion, but people do want the choice to make decisions based on our beliefs and don't want government or other lobbyists passing laws that carry a bias we don't agree with. Most people are so afraid that the other side will pass their laws, they push for theirs instead. If no laws were made about abortion, one way or another, that carry any bias at all, either prochoice or prolife since this involves religious beliefs, there would have to be CONSENSUS on any law for it to pass. Just like how we all agree that murder is wrong, and we agree on that; that is still a religious law about life and death, which is a spiritual matter, but we happen to agree. So the same type of agreement would have to be formed first, before laws can be passed by consent of the people, and NOT imposing a religious bias one way or another either prochoice or prolife biases, or that is NOT protecting all beliefs equally under law.
I believe Guiliani stated this well, when he said he is personally prolife but constitutionally he has to equally include the beliefs of people who believe otherwise. And Hutchison also stated support for pro-choice in terms of not letting government interfere with personal decisions, which is a Republican conservative value that many people can relate to.
The problem is that people don't apply "pro-choice"/free exercise of religion CONSISTENTLY. We can be for the choice of abortion, and trust it will not be abused; but against the choice of guns, without trust, and try to ban that! We can be for the choice of prostitution to be legalized, but against the choice of drugs. We can be for the choice of the death penalty, but against the choice of suicide or euthanasia. I've seen all varieties of what people believe in the choice of for themselves, but against for other people, and it is NOT consistent and I agree that is the problem.
The solution to all this would be to require a consensus on any laws that touch on religious matters, from gay marriage to abortion/death penalty, even immigration laws invoke differences in how people treat foreign neighbors, and if people born in the US who break laws should be equally illegal if you are going to say foreigners who break laws are illegal. (This would probably mean laws can be passed locally, where the demographics are the same, but would vary from district to district where the politics are different; or that legislation that is agreed upon would be very limited, and most of the work to prevent abuses would be left to the private sector to set up programs and resources, instead of passing a prohibitive law preventing that choice at all.)
As long as we keep making laws that favor one side or another in a religious issue, then that technically violates constitutional rights to equal protection of interests without discrimination or religious bias by government. That is the real issue, and all these other labels and examples are the resulting consequence and expression of unresolved conflicts.
That has got to be one of the funniest statements I have ever read. 
