This argument is flawed on so many levels...
The choice to go vegan does not only save animals from harm, but also humans, esp. those that are indirectly linked to the meat industry, e.g. people growing up next to soy plantations (for animal fodder) that are exposed to an insane amount of pesticides that have been linked to a drasic increase in birth defects and babies being stillborn (http://www.natural.news/2015-08-28-pesticide-use-increased-162-in-brazil-as-gm-soy-corporations-subjugated-country-to-agrochemical-imperialism.html).
Also, this argument is based on the moral of the writer that deems killing through human hands as something essentially bad, but the killing of animals as lower on the unethical scale than the killing of human fetuses. While this can be argued any which way, the argument seems to imply that somebody who does one thing thatâs unethical and another thing thatâs ethical is necessariiy a hypocrite because they behave unethically in a specific situation. Individuals can be both ethical and unethical depending on the situation, and their ethical behavior is not negated by they fact that they also behave unethically. Itâs funny that this is meant to be a critique on SJWâs but exercizing a similar strategy that is identified as troublesome when used by the SJ crowd: namely logical fallacies (tu quoque and ad hominem).
Furthermore, not all vegans/vegetarians procreate and/or are women. As a gay vegan man, I do not have an opinion on abortion, simply because my sexual activity will never cause anyone to become pregnant, and therefore, my perspective on the matter is very insignificant.
izzy806
kianamaiart
2087
yousharknotpass
tangentwithtanner
