4 comments
Avatar
This is a very long article and definitely one worth responding to when I have a few hours to kill. I was turned Vegan by someone calling me a hypocrite and so I know that it has power to change people. But even if Pro-Lifers were inconsistent, it still has no impact on the morality of abortion. That much I know to be true.
Replying to Chastity White Rose
Hide Replies 3
Avatar Placeholder
Clinton
That's just it. If inconsistency arguments succeed, the most they do is prove inconsistency (since you were convinced of the inconsistency, you became vegan). However, they prove nothing about the morality of abortion, itself. That's the point of the article.
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
Yeah I know. It's a trick to destroy the reputation of Pro-Lifers. In my particular case it worked out differently than intended. I would have had to give up being Pro-Life if I wasn't also Vegan because I care about consistency. To those who don't care, it wouldn't have the same effect, but yes I get the point of the article because I understand that these claims are dishonest because they don't want people to actually be consistent. They want a strawman to knock down in order to fool them into being Pro-Choice. I will kick their asses in the least violent way possible.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Clinton
That is true that they don't want people to be consistent and only want to fool them into being pro-choice. But I would also argue that many pro-life people, such as myself, are not inconsistent for not being vegans. Human life is sacred and animal life is not. So there is no inconsistency in arguing that abortion is immoral whereas eating animals is not. So inconsistency arguments don't work on me because my views are not inconsistent. And that's another point that Colgrove, et al, raised -- not all pro-life people believe the same things. Pro-life people are pro-life for different reasons, so whereas one subset of pro-life people might be inconsistent, another subset aren't being inconsistent.