In my experience vegans and vegetarians generally don't think any killing of suffering beings is automatically wrong, we think killing them when alternatives exist is wrong...
What are the alternatives to abortion if the problem is not the child existing but the birthing process? (Serious question. I'm aware birthing has a fairly high chance of permanent damage to the birther, and I was under the impression the abortion isn't to avoid raising a child but to avoid the damage caused by birthing.)
The grandparent post which set the context for this discussion made a specific comparison between pro choice vegans and pro life meat eaters.
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.
"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]
>What are the alternatives to abortion if the problem is not the child existing but the birthing process?
1. C-section.
2. Do nothing and let the thing come out the existing hole knowing full well that one of the side effects may be death of the mother, infant or both.
In this day and age the latter really isn't an option that's seriously on the table but back in the day abortions/c-sections weren't really a thing or were more risky and you couldn't tell in advance if there would be complications so that risk was just accepted.
Edit: FWIW I am pro-choice (since apparently we can't have a discussion about alternatives to abortion without assuming other people's opinions on the issues).
Ah, so who is going to force the C-section/normal birth to happen? The authorities, with guns? If that scene is ok with someone, that's where I'd disagree with them, because it's clearly cruel.
There's countless situations where I could judge someone's behavior as a thing they should never do, even though I'm not in their shoes, but this isn't one of them. If a mother wants to abort, that's just on her! Maybe the suffering of the fetus is tragic, but it's all her choice and I can't really judge her because I'm not her. I accept I can't prevent every bad or possibly bad outcome and end all suffering.
Edit: I appreciate dialog on the specifics of these things. I think people just... assume that because they're all on the same "side" they come to the same beliefs and conclusions from the same reasoning (or that everyone around them has a reasoning to begin with) and that can end up causing huge problems.
What "serious chance of permanent damage to the birther"? Down-thread, you make it clear that you're not talking about something that a C-section can prevent. What are you talking about?
We are aware that birthing causes a permanent change to the body in terms of bone calcium, along with things like tearing(which is really common), hormonal changes, etc. I also should note I consider C-sections to be serious damage, as it results in the cutting of the abdominal muscles and uterus, which can result in weakness later on.
Well, cool, that's where the disagreement is. If some woman I don't know says there's no alternative, I'm going to believe her because I don't know her.