Ehrm...married people CAN'T "fornicate" (have premarital sex) hev. And sexual ethics have nothing to do with the question of elective abortion because no one loses their life.

Can't believe you're trotting out this exhausted cliche.
If you think killing humans is no worse than killing animals for food, then why should it be illegal to kill any person at all?
Especially given that you wrote in another thread that you have no problem with people eating meat.
If you were to be even minimally consistent, you would have to rescind all penalties for murder.
But
the pro abortion contingent has never been even minimally consistent.

The point is there are folks who believe it is wrong to kill animals. Should their morality prevent people from eating animals??

I know you will say no, of course not. Apply that same logic to the situation of abortion.

And if I apply it to elective abortion, which kills a living human being for reasons other than self defence, why shouldn't I apply it to ALL murder of human beings in general? That is what I am asking you...
Or to all rape?
Or to all theft?
In each of these instances, there are people who do not share my moral views; why should they have my moral views forced on them -
when according to you, no one has a right to force morals onto others?

Because abortion isn't murder. Murder has to come from an external source, a mother is making an internal decision. That is why an outside moral opinion should have no inpact on what people do with their bodies.

That is why you can continue to kill and eat animals even though some choose not to participate in such immorality.

Straw man argument:
Show me where I said "abortion is murder".
I haven't and I don't.
Why?
Because "murder" connotes an illegal killing and abortion is obviously legal for any reason at the present time.
But I've said abortion is killing, and it is. Even the National Abortion Federation ex president Faye Wattleton acknowledges that much.
You know,
This semantic game you play, "external source vs. internal decision"...do you really think anyone is thrown off track by such a lame piece of pro- abortion rhetoric
???
It is manifestly obvious that killing is being done to the body of one individual by the other, regardless of the location of the victim.
"Internal, external"
...please, stop trying in vain to obscure the point.

I agree!
Let them tatoo an anchor on their butt. Let them pierce each ear one hundred times. Let them shave their head and pluck out their eyelashes.
Those are things 'people do with their bodies'.
However,
Tearing apart an embryo or fetus limb from limb, or burning him or her to death with saline, or puncturing his or her neck at the base of the skull and sucking out the contents...
Those are something people do with someone else's body, hev.

I can?
Apparently you've forgotten the conversation in which I mentioned several products that I use INSTEAD of meat.
In fact I just went to that thread earlier tonight because I found out I had made a spelling error on one of those products.
The thread is "Are Vegetarians Nuts?"...

In that same thread,
YOU wrote that you don't think people should stop eating meat.
And now you are telling me it is immoral to eat meat?
Intriguing.
Not to mention,
You STILL haven't told me why it is alright to force morality on people who don't agree with your morals, if we are talking about murder, rape and theft - but somehow everything is different when it is a helpless fetus who is being killed.
I'm eager to hear your answer to this knotty problem.

Here you go hev.
This is your post (#21) in the thread "Are Vegetarians Nuts?" by hkjabwa, in the Off Topic section.

I know this departs a little from the topic, but I am just wondering...
That was - what? a week ago? two weeks ago?
If you don't think people should stop eating meat, as you wrote in that post so recently, why have you written in this thread that eating meat is "immorality"?

To be continued...

Like I said, you can try to spin it, but you can't. You accuse me of justifying killing and then you do it yourself. I think there's a word for that, but I'll let others say it.

I do remember that thread. I didn't mean "you" personally. I should have said "one can continue to eat animals".

I'm just alluding to the fact that the morality of abortion is a personal morality. I don't think someone's personal morality should trump anyone else's. Just like people who find eating animals to be immoral I don't think they should prevent others from eating animals, much in the same way I don't think people's views on abortion should dictate what a woman chooses to do with her body.

I don't view abortion as murder or immoral. If you do find it objectionable you can choose not to participate, just like vegetarians do not participate in eating animals.

That's ONLY if you can salve or sear your conscience by convincing yourself that an unborn baby is NOT a human being.

Apparently you can do that - and for that, I honestly feel sorry for you.

I don't care if a zygote was a completely developed human (which it is not). It is still under the domain of the woman's body and only her personal morality has domain there.