The main inconsistency that I see in the anti-choice/abortion position is that the concern for the welfare of children too often seems to disappear in the people who hold this position AFTER the child is born!
What am I talking about?
Many of these anti-abortion folks are the same people who do not get involved in protecting the rights of poor children to have a decent quality of life by making sure that social programs (like health care, free school lunches, Headstart etc) are fully funded to meet the developing needs of children AFTER they're born.
It's like all most of the anti-choice people care about is getting the child born - screw what type of life the kid has after they're born.
To me, that's the height of inconsistency.
If people TRULY care about the sanctity of life, then they would PROTECT LIFE AFTER IT'S BORN.
And many of these same folks support the death-penalty(the taking of life) and a lot of them do not want the U.S. to give money in foreign assistance to poor countries, even if that money will save the lives of poor children overseas!
To me, until one becomes an advocate of the sanctity of ALL life and actively works as hard to protect it OUTSIDE the womb as you do inside the womb, your position is riddled full of holes.
Either protect everyone's right to life or don't be so moralistic.