Eileen McNamara, a dedicated libertarian when it comes to abortion rights, in her column today questions how The Presumptive Nominee could say that he believes "life begins at conception" and at the same time have a 100% perfect voting record on legalized abortion as judged by groups like NARAL.

Speak, Eileen.

I did not know that Senator John F. Kerry believes that life begins at conception. Now that I do know, I do not understand 20 years of votes supporting a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

I tend to believe the 20 years of consistent votes more than one interview held during a tour "designed to highlight his his values and cast himself as an acceptable alternative for conservative voters" (that is what the Globe called it last Monday).

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's explanation over the weekend implied that his civic duty in a pluralistic society required him to ignore his conscience. ''There is something called freedom of conscience in the Catholic Church," Kerry told an Iowa newspaper. ''I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life begins at conception. But I don't take my Catholic beliefs, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant, on a Jew, or an atheist who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." So, Kerry's conscience is not at odds with church teaching, just with his voting record? By any measure, that is an odd definition of conscience. Forget church teaching for a moment. Conscience is a moral concept, as well as a religious one, after all.

I agree. Does it follow from this that "character counts"?

If you believe that life begins at conception, doesn't your conscience compel you to vote in concert with that belief? Just as, if your conscience tells you capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder, you would vote against the death penalty? Or if you believe that gay marriage is a fundamental civil right, you would vote against a constitutional amendment to ban it?

"I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos"." - Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

I, and I suspect many others who support legal abortion, had mistakenly assumed that, on this very personal issue, Kerry's conscience was at odds with the teaching of his church. His consistent record in favor of abortion rights, family planning, and reproductive freedom was, I thought, a courageous reflection of an independent mind.

So much talk about his courage. Unnecessary hogwash. I say expediency explains the behavior just as well. And saying that voting 4 out of 4 times to support partial-birth abortion is "at odds with the teaching of his church" is some kind of understatement! Furthermore, such votes are also in opposition to the overwhelming public sentiment concerning this repulsive practice, even in Massachusetts. But it is such a voting record that keeps the militant abortion-rights fanatics happy with Senator Kerry and keeps their ire turned elsewhere. Expedience is at work here, not courage or independence.

Now, I don't know what to think. I cannot respectfully disagree with him as I do with an abortion opponent whose conscience prompts her to work to unseat lawmakers like Kerry. I understand her. She is acting on principle, lobbying to change laws antithetical to her conscience. I don't understand him, voting consistently in opposition to what he now tells us is one of his core beliefs.

Eileen, you are being very un-nuanced here!