No. The hypocrisy is not in choosing to believe life begins at conception; it’s in not giving a damn about life post-birth. And I’m not just talking about that personal reproductive choice they make, but the one they’d make for others — then step aside and blame the woman (because of course they usually do blame the woman) saying the equivalent of, “You made your bed, now lie in it.” They’d cut funding for children’s healthcare, WIC, etc. — so it’s all about controlling women, and not about being truly pro-life.

Even if we agree that life begins at conception, I would argue that it is a pregnant woman’s right to terminate that pregnancy up until the fetus could survive independently from her body, absent “heroic” medical intervention. Up until it is born, the state has no legitimate interest, as they would in the case of murder (of one of its citizens). Until it is born, it is a potential person. “Life”? We end lives every day. Did you eat a burger? You ended a life. So we can split hairs about the “sanctity of life” (and we could argue that that only applies to “human life”) but why? Let’s just say that until the child is born, it is a moral and private reproductive matter best left to the people directly involved.

Would you make an exception “in cases of rape or incest”? Why? Is it the fetus’s fault? No. So there’s clearly a judgment here — when exceptions are made — about the fault or innocence of the woman. Or is it that we wouldn’t inflict that on a man — her father, husband, husband to be? Of course, it’s unconscionable to suggest that no exception should be made in such cases. But I’d argue it’s best just to stay out of her private business. No one even needs to ask the question “why?”