Many arguments are fought too much black and white. What people might mean versus what they say is very much different.

"I'm pro-life, so I'm anti-abortion!" <> "I'm pro capital punishment"
What they might mean is: babies shouldn't be killed, they are (still) innocent, but adults who have proven to have done wrong can be punished.

What I personally mean when I say I don't like tomatoes (and I say that! Often!) is: "I don't like raw/uncooked tomatoes. I do like tomatoes when they are 'prepared' in any way, like cooked, baked, processed into Ketchup, or fermented. I *love 'em as a sauce on my oven-baked Pizza."

I'm afraid we're living in a Twitter society where we want to have short and simple, not elaborate and nuanced. It's actually what I'm most appalled by when I look at many of the arguments happening in the US and some other places in the world right now. It's black versus white, it's 'blue' versus 'red', and all other nuance has left the conversation, all the grey has gone from all discussion. But in the grey we can find out basically everything about a persons beliefs and thinking. Not in the black, not in the white, those are just the end-results - like a painting you see in a Museum but haven't seen the process, tools, education, costs, accidents, drafts of. How can you value that without all that knowledge?

So yes, we are often very inconsistent in our claims and one-liners, but only if you dumb down/flatten everything we say. If you really listen, and look for the whole argument we might discover there's huge consistency present in most people.