Two of the most hotly-debated issues in the sociological/political/ethical arena are abortion and capital punishment.  Mathematically, there are four possible viewpoints offered by combining the two issues: 1)pro abortion with pro capital punishment, 2)pro abortion with con capital punishment, 3)con abortion with con capital punishment,and 4)con abortion with pro capital punishment.  Without arguing for any specific position, one might look for evidences of rational and consistent thinking based on a comparision of one's stands on the two issues. 

Basically the concern in both issues is the question of whether or not society has the right to condone "killing" (to use the most emotional word), under certain conditions.  Whether that decision is made by an individual (abortion) or by society (capital punishment), the result is the same.  Laws shift as various elements of society gain power, but one's individual stand tends to be constant.

The most vocal groups and individuals seem to fall into the two combinations that strain credibility about the thinker's logical thought-processes.  With few exceptions, those who are against abortion are the same people who are for capital punishment.  Most who are for abortion are the ones who are against capital punishment.  In each of these combinations, the tally comes out to one vote for killing, and one vote opposed to killing. 

One has to understand that semantics can be confusing, and that actually two of the four possible stands on these issues are absolute and two are qualified.  Con-abortion (no abortion-- the preferred semantic being pro-life) is an absolute-stand; pro-abortion (selective abortion--the preferred semantic being pro-choice) is a qualified one.  No one (unless proposing a dramatic and complete end of the world population) advocates abortion of all fetuses. 

Similarly, con-capital-punishment (no capital punishment) is an absolute stand; pro-capital-punishment (selective capital punishment) is a qualified one.  No one (unless absolutely irrational) advocates that all criminals, regardless of the nature of the crime, be given the death sentence.

Is it rational to take contrary sides on the issues of whether "to kill selectively or never to kill?"  The question here is that of whether or not espousals show a clear follow-through of stated philosophies.  Certain combinations of advocacy are logical; others are not.  To argue that one should never, under any circumstances, permit abortion, yet at the same time state that capital punishment should be enforced in certain cases, is a dichotomy.  The same contradiction is evidenced by those who hold that abortion has merits under qualified conditions, but that capital punishment should never be invoked. 

It should be clear that no argument for or against either issue has any bearing on this point of parallel-philosophy.  But, in assessing validity-of-thinking, honestly comparing one's pro and con stands on the particular issues of abortion and capital punishment can help clarify if advocacy is the result of emotional reaction, unquestioned creedal persuasion, or careless thinking--or the result of a coordinated, logical thought-process.  By its definition, "logic" is "sound reasoning."

It doesn't matter which "sides" an individual may be on--if the pairings are basically for selective abortions and for selective capital punishment, or against all abortions and against all capital punishment, the individual may not be in agreement with you, me, or his or her community, but the person is closer to exhibiting a philosophy that makes sense than those who muddle their stands by thinking differently about "killing" when they address abortion than they do when they address capital punishment.

Whatever one's stand may be, one should strive to make sense if one hopes to be effectual in converting others to a certain point of view.  Indeed, one should, if one cares about rationality at all, want to examine one's opinions on these as well as other issues to determine what methods of reasoning, if any, were invoked.

Although "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (Emerson), a thoughtful consistency is the mark of a clear head.