In which case, yes, her opposition to male dominance is probably the issue. Perhaps she believes a woman has a “fundamental right to choose,” but that the choices presented must be approved by the political correctness committee to avoid male dominance.

But I too am extremely reluctant to discuss politics in social situations for a variety of reasons but the main one is that I don’t want politics to invade every aspect of my life. I generally follow the old English gentleman’s club rules: you can talk about anything except politics and religion. I’d rather find topics of discussion where we can find common ground and enjoy each others company.

For instance, I believe in strong state’s rights, but stronger property rights. That is, regardless of how strong the state is, I believe it should not be able to take my property from me, a la Kelo. Also, while I believe in strong state’s rights, I do believe there should be moral limits to what a state can legalize. Of course my moral limits are different than other people’s. Consider that an inconsistency if you’d like, or consider it a generalization of my feeling that strong property rights morally trump strong state’s rights.

Regarding “the right to choose” and FDA regulation of implants, I find the inconsistency funny. Yes, I think that the Left’s main reason for supporting FDA regulation while claiming “it’s a woman’s body to do with as she pleases,” is inconsistent. However, I also believe a consistent theory could be advanced. Such as “the FDA has approved abortion procedures as safe, whereas it has not apporved silicone breast implants — if it does I’ll accept them as well.” Yes, that moves away from the “fundamental right to choose” but it’s more intellectually honest.

I, myself, oppose abortion, but not because of the life of the child (since proving the fetus isn’t alive would kill my argument), but for the same reason I oppose canabalism and desecration of graveyards. Even if the fetus isn’t “alive,” it is definitely a body, and it’s morally wrong to destroy bodies — even dead ones.

I oppose Roe vs. Wade because it’s now impossible to overturn. “Roe” herself has tried to get laws passed to regulate abortions, but they get struck down as unconstitutional. She then filed a suit to get the courts to consider new information regarding the condition of a fetus, but the suit was dismissed because of lack of standing. Now, how could somebody set up a controversy abotu abortion that can go to court?

However, for her to admit that motivation would be inconsistent with her goal. It would be tantamount to admitting that women are weaker and need protection. So she picks a nice-sounding but ultimately incoherent defense for each government intervention.

The worst of it is that she is probably not consciously aware of her own motives, and so will become more and more angry if someone attempts to force her to face the flimsiness of the arguments she is presenting.

My point is that, no matter how nuts people appear to be, there is usually a good explanation for their actions. The convenience store people could be motivated by greed, but you seem to have given up on the abortion rights woman as having no underlying philosophy. She probably does have one, but feels trapped in a situation where she cannot be honest.

It’s quite possible to reconcile “human beings have an ethical obligation to support one another” with “taxation for the purpose of wealth-redistribution is wrong”, as long as one has a consistent philosophy about the nature of government and its proper role in society. But very few people have such a philosophy…it too often gets in the way of their “whatever I want, whenever I want, whatever the price, just as long as it’s somebody else paying” desiderata.

I have a lot of liberal/leftist friends, close friends whom I would take a bullet for, but we no longer discuss politics, because it has become disatisfying. I’m not so quick on my feet sometimes, and grow weary of being ganged up on.

BTW, I’m not a Bush fan myself, but to equate Bush with Hitler is dangerous hyperbole, as is the assertion of two stolen elections. But I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, especially when it is already full of such mush.

And, if I may indulge – a quick comment on the abortion issue. I have argued for years that the debate we find ourselves in, today, will be transitory. Someday, and perhaps sooner rather than later, the surgical procedure for extracting a fetus, to be raised ala Brave New World, will be no more dangerous, nor discomfiting, than the procedure to have an abortion. Then, the argument about a woman’s right to choose will be rendered moot. I don’t know who will “decide” then, but it will involve a fundamental debate on life, individual liberty, property and the power of the state in ways that make many current issues pale by comparison.

I remember a time when I had the conservative instincts without the underlying philosophy to support it- when I left work to stay home with my first child and subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, it was my intellectual awakening. Now I can argue many subjects competently. However, I am still careful about what and how I discuss- most people don’t know, don’t care, and don’t wish to sound stupid.