[rintense]

But what if, for political expediency and redefinition, Condi has applied a new term to an old position? Perhaps her view is, that in those 'exception' cases, it is the *choice* of the mother what to do. To me, that technically means pro-choice.

[NeoCaveman]

But what if, for political expediency and redefinition, Condi has applied a new term to an old position? Perhaps her view is, that in those 'exception' cases, it is the *choice* of the mother what to do. To me, that technically means pro-choice.

Fascinating "what if", in fact it's possible but I'll err on the more likely assumption that it is the kind of verbal gaffe that only a political (not policy mind you but politics) neophyte would make.

I'd love to be proven wrong but as before I still need clarification.

[Dan from Michigan]

But what if, for political expediency and redefinition, Condi has applied a new term to an old position? Perhaps her view is, that in those 'exception' cases, it is the *choice* of the mother what to do. To me, that technically means pro-choice.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050311-115948-2015r.htm

I doubt it. The reason being is the use of the term "the other side". The other was that she was extremely vague in her comments. There were a lot of words without a straight forward answer. I shouldn't be surpried since she's a diplomat.

IMO she's trying to do a "John Dingell"(pro-choice outside of partial birth, tries to sound pro-life) or "David Bonior"(wind in the air) or even "Granholm"(talks almost pro-life but is hardline pro-abort) and try and have it both ways on the issue.

I was very unimpressed. I can respect and disagree with "I'm pro-choice in the first trimester" or "Pro-choice outside of partial birth abortion". If she wants any chance of support from me - she needs to stop the vagueness.

I hope she stays at state dept. She does a good job there, but campaigns are a whole different world.