Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Say So Long to the Irish - Abortion Wins

For some whom others label as "religious" and whose tenets are challenged on the basis of that label, the fundament of their beliefs and practices are not related to a "church" organization and/or a human codified religious doctrine. Their tenets and practices are based on a personal relationship with a God and Savior. Build a case - and related accusations - against that fact, if you will.
The moral tenets of some are derived from such a relationship - while the same or similar moral tenets of others are based on other factors. Nonetheless, those moral tenets are applied to the conduct of lives, and are important. One of those tenets pertains to the murder of defenseless other beings.
There has been a lot of obfuscatory and PC rhetoric applied by those who wish to avoid or deflect from the obvious - like the vapid "right to choose". Of course a woman has the right to control her own body. So be it. That includes the choice keeping it clean and healthy, or being filthy and abusing herself with all sorts of harmful stuff, or doing things somewhere in between. So be it. That includes her decisions about whether or not to enable her pregnancy - or avoid it. So be it. It's her choice
But - does the woman have a right to murder an individual living being she chose to enable - a being that is not herself? For convenience, Hitler murdered many, many Jews - and others. For convenience, Stalin murdered a whole bunch of folks. Pol Pot did much the same - and so have many other powerful figures. Yes - those murders are grand-scale events of murder for convenience. Is a single murder for convenience any less egregious?
Given the current legal frameworks, pregnant women in many places can choose to murder for convenience. How is her convenience any different or more significant than that of Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or ??? It appears that the act of willful abortion is as much a mark of destruction for the woman as it is for the child she murders. As a society, we have become complicit. Anyone care to try to form that into "religiosity"?

I don't know if you heard this or not, it's pretty hi-tek stuff, but we figured out what causes pregnancy!
It's called "sex" and every woman knows about it. They know it causes pregnancy. So, unless a woman was raped, she invited a child to form in her womb.

Okay, now explain how you can justify forcing a woman to bear a child she does not want...it is not your body.

That is the problem here, some still see women as chattel.

Hey - I don't want to control what any woman does with her body - she must have full control of that. Likewise, I have full control of mine. If that "control of her body" gives her the right to kill a child she does no want, do I have that same right?

The stupidity and ignorance of somebody that doesn't understand the concept of "Pro-Choice" is comical.

Here is what I understand about your "Pro-Choice". You support the concept that a woman can choose to murder a child she does not want. In supporting that, you also - by default - support the practice of abortion. If the practice of abortion did not exist, she would not have the "choice" you support.
Did I get it right? Where is the comedy in this killing field?

I don't know if you heard this or not, it's pretty hi-tek stuff, but we figured out what causes pregnancy!

It's called "sex" and every woman knows about it. They know it causes pregnancy. So, unless a woman was raped, she invited a child to form in her womb.