with being pro-choice and an AR advocate? I admit I'm becoming increasingly confused since reading a lot of posts by AR advocates around the 'net on various discussion boards...
*by no means am I assuming anything I've read is representative of the majority of AR advocates; I can only speak, though, from my own experience*
I've seen AR advocates opine the plight of all animals and the suffering and cruelty -- and in another separate discussion about abortion get defensive and go on about MY rights to do what I want with MY body; or become very neutral, not wanting to dictate what others should do...etc. Now, I'm not taking a position on abortion in this thread because I do not mean for this to be a thread on pro-choice vs. pro-life; I want to know if there is a consistency problem...Is it inconsistent to be pro-choice and pro-AR?
For example, vegans as well as some AR folks speak of the equality of suffering between animals and humans, making no distinction; as well as the equality of suffering between animals: So if we agree a bee "suffers,"(or any member of the animal kingdom) regardless of whether we know the extent, then how can it be okay to assume that a fetus does not "suffer"? And if it does suffer, how can it be "vegan" and how can it be consistent with AR philosophy? If it does not suffer, how is that concluded indisputably? How do we "know"? How can we be sure? And if we're not sure, then doesn't that mean we err on the side of caution and assume it does?
And for those who don't want to "tell a woman what to do," with their bodies, it's their "choice" etc.; I find it interesting there is no problem telling people what is ethical/moral, regarding what people choose to eat/put in their bodies and no problem making a judgment upon them of ethicality and morality...
I don't know...I just feel an inconsistency here for sake of convenience.
I could be wrong; yet cannot find the reasoning.
Have I been clear in stating what I'm after here?
Anyone else find this puzzling? Any opinions?