Abortion. Death penalty. Eating meat. The pachyderm always finds it interesting to contemplate the internal inconsistency in (liberal) views on the triumvirate of life issues.
The typical conservative ideology is internally consistent: only guilty human life can be ended; human life is more important than animal life. The Catholic ideology (pro-life, anti-death penalty, agnostic on meat) position makes sense in terms of protecting all human life but having little regards for animal life, as humans are not animals. Likewise, those who are pro-choice or agnostic on all issues use the same logic with respect to all three issues: it’s your own damn choice.
The traditional pro-abortion, anti-omnivorous, anti-death penalty stance is simply illogical. The existance of possibly innocent life (i.e. those on death row) is used as a defense against the death penalty but not against abortion (by definition, innocent life). Until birth, human life is of less importance than animal life or animal suffering; afterwards, humans and animals receive the same treatment. Please explain this one to the pachyderm.