How come most vegans aren’t pro-life?


Serious question.



They aren’t? That’s inconsistent with their thinking.


I’m sure that there are some pro-life vegans, just as there are some pro-choice non-vegans.

I think that veganism seems like a difficult diet for the average person to follow–expensive and the foods don’t taste good out-of-season in many parts of the U.S. And the vegan diet has to be carefully planned so that the person can receive enough nutrients to be healthy (especially protein). Some of the foods are not familiar to the average American, and so they have to learn how to cook these foods.

So perhaps many vegans are wealthy celebs, many in the entertainments and arts, and many who live i LA (where vegan food actually tastes good even in January!). They can afford to have someone else plan, purchase, and prep their vegan foods for them, and the chef will make sure that the food is tasty, too!

These folks tend to lean left/liberal politically (one big reason is that there are many LGBTQ people in the arts, and many of the liberal/left/Democratic laws/policies are highly supportive of LGBTQ “rights”). And of course, liberals/left/Democrats generally tend to support what they call “reproductive choice,” which is generally understand as abortion rights for all women in all/almost all circumstances.

Does this make sense?


Why should they be? There is more than one possible reason to be vegan, and I see no need to connect vegetarianism/veganism and the abortion issue.


There are many myths and misunderstanding to dispel. Who says most vegans aren’t pro-life? I am on ewho is both. It is true one must be more conscious of what they eat and where it comes from but it is certainly not more difficult nor more expensive in the long run. But pain and suffering are two reasons to go the vegan path.


Yes, this. There are people who are vegan solely because they think it is healthier, or because they themselves feel better physically when they eat in that way. Others who are concerned with cruel commercial practices for living animals but have bought into the myth that the baby in the womb is just a mass of cells as of yet. And still others who are concerned with respect for life in all forms. Probably also some who just do it because it’s trendy or they lose weight. I don’t think you can generalize a political position for all vegans.


As a vegan, how do you feel about vaccines.


Some are pro life, but they’re more likely pro choice while personally opposed to abortion as they tend to not push veganism onto other people.

I would say the reason Pro Lifers tend to not hold extreme views on animal rights is because we view the animal kingdom of a hierarchy. So we will put human beings at the top of the hierachy because we only compare fully developed and healthy members of members of the species to each other. The fact that we might find similarities between lower members of the animal kingdom to children, infants, or the unborn doesn’t mean much. We don’t compare individual members of a species to other species or to other members of our species.

Extreme animal rights activists do have a tendency to compare individual members of a species. Even if they don’t, it’s very common today for pet owners to refuse to call themselves an “owner.” They now call it adopting a pet and they refer to their pets as their children. This makes it all the more confusing to them because when we put animals to sleep, it’s common to remind people that we don’t want to make the animal suffer. That wouldn’t be kind. As such, it starts looking like we’re being more humane to animals than to human beings because we don’t recognize that putting them to sleep is really about the fact that they’re just an animal. But we do seek out humane ways to care for them as they are a part of God’s creation.


We don’t put an ill animal to sleep because it is “just an animal”, we put it to sleep humanely because it is part of God’s creation over which we need to be a good steward, and the animal has no way to process suffering or use suffering for either the atonement of its own sins (it has no sins) or for the good of all.
Suffering for an animal has no meaning or use other than pain.

We are not “stewards” over other human beings, and suffering for a human being has a completely different use and meaning.



I know some ethical vegans who are pro-life.

Another question is, can a vegan own a pet? I am talking about carnivorous pets like cats and dogs.


It’s my understanding that they differ on this.
Some of them see adopting a cat or dog from a rescue or shelter as simply reducing animal suffering by caring for an animal who otherwise, although healthy, would probably be killed for lack of a home.

Some of them will adopt the animal and try to feed it “vegan” pet food although it’s not the animals natural diet and many vets would advise against it. I have heard of cats who lived a long time eating vegetables only but they may well have been very malnourished. I would not do this to my cat.

Some of them will not adopt such animals.


Yes. Providing you feed them what they are supposed to eat. My daughter is a vegetarian who has a cat. She gives her cat chicken and fish. No beef, because cats don’t take down cows :slight_smile: As she says, cats are supposed to eat smaller critters, not oat, corn, and wheat. She buys cat food rather than trapping mice for the cat


They, like a lot of your people that emphasize nature and the environment, see humans as being a force of destruction and cruelty, and unworthy of life because of our impact on the planet and animal life. They see the world as over populated and over developed and the birth of more humans is not a desirable outcome.


This is a grossly overly broad generalization of an entire group of people who, like I said above, are vegan for a huge number of reasons.

Every vegan is not a giant environmentalist, just like every person who rescues animals is not a PETA activist (many animal rescuers actually have a huge problem with PETA positions).

Please recognize that people are individuals and not all the extremists who run around protesting or joining movements.


I think your understanding of redemptive suffering is too rooted in the middle ages and way too close to penal substitution theory. It’s very disturbing and turns the Father into an abuser.

The Cross is not adequately understood without the ressurection. If Christ merely suffered and died and did not resurrect, the meaning of the cross would be lost. The crucifixion doesn’t satisfy God’s wrath toward humanity. I mean, say someone had sinned against you in so many ways, they could never restore to you what you lost. Your child reaches out to them to preach hope, repentance, and reconcilation, and they torture your child with a slow painful death.

THAT is the greatest sin of all. We KILLED God’s son. We KILLED our God. It was the greatest moment of despair for the early Christians.

But add the Resurection, and we find the way of the cross as a road map. We unit our suffering to Christ’s. We model how we suffer onto His example. We even look to His cry of “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” and then reflect further on the psalms to recognize we are never abandoned. It is only ever US abandoning God. And as such, no matter WHAT we suffer or how we sin, God never hates us. We must have faith in God’s love and goodness, because the fires of Hell are the fires of God’s love. And if we do not trust God, we will keep our backs turned against Him.

Suffering can either be redemptive as it is an opportunity to find God in the midst of our suffering. Or it can harden our hearts and make us bitter toward God. It is redemptive when it refines us. It isn’t when it makes us bitter. No amount of increased suffering will fix that.

Telling people that they must die slow deaths in order to make up for some debt they owe to God is not the Catholic viewpoint and is far more likely to make Christianity look abusive and inhumane. Moreover, it would seem to argue that pain management at death is immoral.


I think we have differing opinions. Have a nice day!


If the purpose of their being vegan is to reduce suffering, then it would be contradictory for them to be pro-abortion. For others, however, they’re vegan to try and use as little of earth’s resources as possible. And for yet others, they have to follow that lifestyle for their health. There’s multiple possible reasons for any life decision.


Good points.

The Gospel is a story of the triumph of good over evil, especially the triumph over death itself.

Too many times I have seen the concept of redemptive suffering abused such as telling an abused victim to tolerate and even welcome abuse in the name of Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity. I’ve seen way too cases many of this type of abuse that I was put off from Catholicism for decades.


Because people as a whole in our culture have an excessive love for animals. Many people really love animals more than people. Or I should say many people love non human animals more than human animals.

In my state, and likely most, animals have more legal protection than a human fetus. If you harm a couple of kittens the police will come after you. If you kill a human fetus you are called a doctor. People learn from what they see.


I don’t wish to derail the thread, but I would like to point out that I have never advocated such a position, nor did I advocate it on this thread. We were specifically talking about a sick animal (the obvious human parallel being a terminally ill or severely injured person), not a person subjected to repeated abuse or even self-harm. It appears someone chose to go off on a lengthy tangent about redemptive suffering, assuming a huge number of things from an extremely short post by me, that I chose not to respond to primarily because I don’t wish to derail a thread about vegans into an analysis of human redemptive suffering. (Plus, the assumptions made are a big turn-off to me and make me not want to discuss.) It is clear that however one views suffering, an animal is incapable of viewing it in ANY sort of a human manner - the animal cannot comprehend the Resurrection either.

I would further suggest that perhaps redemptive suffering or other concepts of human suffering could be a topic for another thread if people want to discuss it further.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit