Re:What the 'meat paradox' reveals about moral decision making
by astura on Thursday February 07, 2019 @06:16PM
(#19109667)
"Pro life" is a feel good yet entirely inaccurate euphemism for "anti choice." One can find something unethical yet not want to ban other people from doing it. For example, I find both meat eating and religion unethical but I don't wish to stop others from eating meat or going to church.
>Lots of people have an abortion and then later have children.
Later? The majority of women who have abortions are already mothers. [1]
Re:What the 'meat paradox' reveals about moral decision making
by humanrebar on Thursday February 07, 2019 @05:14PM
(#19109134)
That's more or less where I am though consistently libertarian ethical veganism makes sense too.
"I don't eat meat or abort fetuses, but I don't want laws or norms saying we can't either." There's no serious ban in meat being discussed.
Lots of people have an abortion and then later have children. Their motivation is not to avoid damage but to delay becoming a parent for financial reasons.
I think it takes a particularly skilled mental gymnast to have an abortion for financial reasons and then turn around to say we shouldn't eat honey because we're exploiting the bees.
That is to say, I'm far more sympathetic to an argument from a vegan who also happens to be pro life, as that seems to me like the more consistent position: pro human and pro animal life.