[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not ALL pro-choicers, but at least the vast majority of them.

One of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of "it is immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. Mothers should not be forced to give their bodily resources to the fetus, even if revoking those resources will result in the fetus' death." Fair enough.

But if that is a person's stance, then that person should also believe that government-imposed taxation is immoral. ie, "it is immoral to force people to pay taxes to the government. Citizens should not be forced to give their money to the government, even if revoking that money will result in the government's collapse." It seems perfectly analogous.

Is there any way a person can subscribe to the former belief, while rejecting the latter belief? It would seem hypocritical to me but perhaps someone can rationalize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above is actually the hardcore libertarian position and I don't think you'll hear very many liberals using it. The normal pro-choice position is that the fetus is not a person and that its death is not relevant. Liberals believe that it can be moral to compel someone to do something if it is necessary for the welfare of another person or other people. The fetus not being a person, there is no case for the government to use compulsion. There is nothing inconsistent about this.

Liberals have similar opinions on issues like gay rights and drug use - that is, that compulsion is not justified - but tend to be in favor of using government compulsion to solve problems where peoples welfare is at stake - health, social security, occupational health and safety, etc.