As for your moral framework part of the comment, irony builds on irony when you suggest that it is not fair to view pro-lifers through another moral framework … it is ironic since it is hard to imagine there even being an abortion issue in the first place if it were not for pro-lifers trying to impose their own moral framework on others. Know what I mean? PS: Abortion is not an issue that I care about so I especially don’t want to go down that rabbit hole. But since this was a post about irony, I couldn’t resist.

To be clear, I am pointing out that there might be a contradiction in being pro-life and pro-milk. But, I know so very little about religious beliefs, so I am not stating the contradiction as fact, but merely suggesting the possibility.

On another note, I have never heard anyone suggest that sentient animals don’t have souls? Do you think that is really true?

The adaptation of various human populations to drink milk as adults is clearly etched into out genes, but admittedly only the genes of certain populations.

As to prolifers I would assume that most of them feel that animals lack a soul completely and as such there is no moral consequence to destroying them at any time, though doing so inhumanely may carry moral consequences for reasons that aren’t readily apparent to me at this point in time. They have a different moral framework than you do, and it’s not really fair to cast their decisions and positions on to your framework and carry it out to the natural conclusion of hypocrisy because it would be hypocritical for someone with your moral framework to be pro-life and proveal, not for someone with their moral framework, a moral framework which from a relativistic standpoint is probably just as valid as your own.