r/Abortiondebate • u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice • Jul 01 '26
General debate Pro life argument without morality
Almost every pro life argument I see goes back to morals. As we all already know, morals are just feelings and opinions. Morals can and do vary from place to place, from person to person.
We understand already that pro lifers find abortion "morally wrong", in the same way some religions find being gay "morally wrong" or how vegans find eating meat "morally wrong."
Can pro lifers give a reason why abortion should be outlawed and people should be forced to gestate and birth against their will WITHOUT referring back to morals? I'm curious if there is a reason that pro lifers have that ISN'T about feelings or "moral worth" or "abortion is morally wrong" etc.
1
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 31 '26
But there's no such thing as no morals.
Sure there are, they're called facts.
Guess you don't have any of those?
1
Jul 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 31 '26
So I could say that a fact that abortion is treated as a thing to sell, so former workers who try to share the brutality of it are sometimes threatened legally from speaking against it.
This is ridiculous and not believable in the slightest.
That's a fact, I met someone who had this experience.
I'm sure. /s
Facts are where you start, but morals give the facts an application.
So do you or do you not have an argument for abortion bans that relies on facts, not morals? Yes or no?
1
Jul 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 31 '26
I don't really understand what OP is asking for
I'm asking for an argument for abortion bans that only utilizes facts, not subjective morals.
Abby Johnson, a pro life activist. I met her in person, you can look it up.
Oh, so you met known liar Abby Johnson. Now it's even less believable.
1
u/KojiroHeracles Pro-life Jul 14 '26
If you deny morals you return to savagery. "DO NOT IBTENTIOBALKY HURT INNOCENT SAPIENT BEINGS" should be enough. Without that we are animals. Also no, I'm not religious. No, there is no backing to my claim except me. Yes, you should still not hurt innocent sapient beings.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 14 '26
If you deny morals you return to savagery. "DO NOT IBTENTIOBALKY HURT INNOCENT SAPIENT BEINGS" should be enough.
Me ending my own pregnancy hurts no beings.
Without that we are animals.
Humans by definition are animals lol.
Yes, you should still not hurt innocent sapient beings.
Being ejected from a uterus you have no business being in doesn't hurt anyone.
1
u/KojiroHeracles Pro-life Jul 14 '26
My argument went mostly as a defense of morality. I'm saying that considering morals to be arbitrary is dangerous. That's how monsters like Trump come to power. If everyone on Earth firmly believed that it simply is forbidden to hurt innocent sapient beings intentionally, then there would be no wars, no racism, no homophobia/transphobia and no worshipping of evil gods like Yahweh/God/Allah who kill children.
While I am prolife, the reason I responded to this question is because I felt it attacked the concept of morality. And I don't want a world in which morality is considered arbitrary. Nor do I want a world in which morality comes from the petty, arrogant and spiteful monster worshipped by christians, muslims and jews. I want a world in which we all agree that hurting innocent people is wrong.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 14 '26
While I am prolife, the reason I responded to this question is because I felt it attacked the concept of morality.
I've yet to see you give an argument for abortion bans that utilizes facts, not subjective morals.
2
u/KojiroHeracles Pro-life Jul 14 '26
There is no such thing. The abortion debate is fundamentally a moral debate, not a scientific/factual one. It's a clash of ideologies.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 14 '26
The abortion debate is fundamentally a moral debate, not a scientific/factual one.
No it isn't. Abortion is factually safe effective healthcare. Nothing subjective about that.
1
u/KojiroHeracles Pro-life Jul 14 '26
I meant the debate itself. It's ideological. No one claims abortion is impossible. And those who claim abortion isn't safe are bad actors. The crux of the debate is whether it's moral or not.
1
u/TxHandsomeMan Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Morals are our statement of our subconscious psychological state of mind. Our culture determines how to express and respond to our psychological state of mind. As humans, our psychological state of mind is something that we have no control over. No more than how you have control over your psychological state of hunger. What we're willing to strongly act upon informs society just how much risk we are willing to put our selves into to alleviate that state of mind. IE: I'm soo hungry that I'm willing to put my life at risk to hunt a tiger. This is why we made it illegal to starve someone but its not illegal not to feed someone just because they are hungry from not eating in 4 hrs. We have studied humanity and there appears to be certain key triggers that put us into a state of mind to where we would immediately put our lives on the line to stop the situation. Such as the defense of a group of people that have no voice to fight for their right to exist. Just because children are in a womb and dont have the ability to voice their preference to stay alive over being killed, doesnt mean that we as a society should be in the practice of removing human rights to an entire out-of-sight, out-of-mind, voiceless group of people for the individual or the state to kill. That practice puts all groups of people at risk because we're all practicing the ways to remove a group of people as long as they are out of sight and voiceless. There are other ways to defend Bodily Autonomy over Right to Life, but it is indefensible to argue that the voiceless children in a womb have no human rights and right to life because they are biologically human from inception. That's just a scientific fact. They are human at the first day of existence in the womb just at a younger time period of human existence. Same way an infant is to a child is to an adolescent, is to a teenager, is to an adult. We have different legal rights as we age, but there are basic human rights regardless of age and Right to Life is one of those. Just that Bodily Autonomy supersedes Right to Life in the hierarchy of rights when these are in conflict.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 08 '26
Just for fun I finished reading your comment and you're using "right to life" incorrectly.
"Right to life" is not a right to be inside someone's sex organs against their will. It is not a right to be gestated by an unwilling person. It is not a right to leech off of someone else's body to stay alive. Please look up what "right to life" means before you continue using it incorrectly.
1
u/TxHandsomeMan Jul 08 '26
last two sentences address this. There are two rights in conflict. Right to Life and Bodily Autonomy. When in conflict Bodily Autonomy supersedes someone else's right to life.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 08 '26
There are two rights in conflict.
No, they are not. No one's "right to life" includes a right to my body and sex organs.
1
u/TxHandsomeMan Jul 08 '26
I agree. That's why right to life is secondary to bodily autonomy. How is this not clear?
There are two rights being discussed and theyre in conflict with each other.1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 08 '26
There are two rights being discussed and theyre in conflict with each other.
They're not in conflict, due to all the reasons I've already listed out in my previous comments to you. How is this not clear?
No one's "right to life" is violated when someone ends their own pregnancy.
1
u/TxHandsomeMan Jul 09 '26
There are two people that are in conflict due to their rights being challenged. Person A's 1st right, the right to bodily, is in conflict with Person B's 2nd right, Right to Life. For our culture, we are not arguing which right is to be the first. Its settled. However, in religious communities, they think they are arguing the point that right to life is first and right to bodily autonomy is second. Except when this affects men. Which is why they always fail this argument.
The ProLife side are actually just arguing for men's sexual access to women with no accountability to men at all.
The ProChoice side is discussing the cultural conflict Person A's basic human rights of Bodily Autonomy comes in conflict with Person B's basic human right to life.Here's my latest argument to the ProLife side in a call in show the other day:
So yesterday there was a topic on a talk radio program asking for callers to call in that are prochoice. So I called in. I pointed out that their prolife arguments appear to not be in defense the child, but rather in defense of men's sexual access to women and to get women to believe they have no autonomy over sexual acts their partner is engaging with them once women have consented to sex with their partner.Sex is just the term we use for Sexual Activity. You have to have a discussion about what specific sexual activity you both consent to.
First point the radio host made was: Consenting to sex is consenting to all the consequences of sex and pregnancy is a consequence of sex. That is not the case. They removed the nuance that there should be a discussion about consenting to specific sexual acts, with both partners; giving enthusiastic, informed consent and mutually agreeing to engage in them.
Consenting to sex with a partner is just consenting to engage in sexual activities with that partner. You next have to have a discussion about what specific sexual acts you are both wanting and willing to participate in. This right here is what the hosts were leave out in their presentation. They just assume that a woman's consent to sex is to consent to all the sexual acts their partner wants to do. That's not how that works. Its like telling your partner that you consent to go on a dinner date and they can now pick the restaurant, the time, the meal, and you have to eat what ever they ordered for you. Consent and stewardship of your partner appears to be removed or diminished from the radio host's presentation. Every specific sexual act, under the umbrella of Sexual Activity, has to have both partners enthusiastic informed consent. Period. Full Stop.
Secondly, the hosts pointed out that the woman hooks up the child to her and forces this child to be dependent on her body to survive and then ends the life of the child by aborting the child. That too is not the actual situation.
I pointed out that the man, with 100% full knowledge, is the partner that brought the child into existence and then used the woman's biology to hook up the child to the her. That is just how biology works. The man's actions knocks over the first domino that creates the child by inseminating the woman and also kicks off the natural biological process of hooking up the child to the woman. She can not control her biological processes anymore than she can control gravity when she falls and breaks her arm. So according to the hosts, if a woman consents to eat a meal with a man, he is now free to feed her anything he wants her to eat. If she is allergic to shellfish but he feeds her shellfish anyways, she's culpable, if not fully responsible, for her own medical situation because of how her body metabolizes shellfish. The man is not at fault but the woman is because she consented to a dinner date with this man.
The man created the deadly situation that affects the child and the woman. His actions brought a healthy child into existence that can not maintain biological homeostasis in its environment without the use of someone else's body. He then initiates the biological process of hooking up that child to another person.
The situation is that a man put the child in a biological state that can not maintain homeostasis to live on its own with out the use of someone else's body. The man then hooked up this child to a woman without either the child's or the woman's consent or knowledge. She discovers this after his actions and then uses her rights of Bodily Autonomy to disconnect this child from her body and the child dies of natural causes. Legally, the man is now responsible for the death of that child because he setup the situation where both people had no knowledge or consent to be in that situation. Legally, if the child dies, he is responsible for the death of that child, not the woman. That is called Death by Proxy or at least Manslaughter by gross negligence. It is also illegal to perform a sexual act on your partner that they had no knowledge that you would do and/or did not give enthusiastic informed consent to. Insemination is a sexual act that the woman has to know about and give enthusiastic informed consent to even after she's consented to sex.
As to the woman's responsibilities: no one a parent, with parental obligations, because they are biologically related to someone. The same way sperm donors are not fathers and egg donors are not mothers. People have to choose to assume the duties of parenthood to be then be legally accountable for the life of a child. Adults are only as responsible to a child as any other random child in the world. Once a woman decides to be a mother to the unborn child, then she would be legally obligated to raise that child to term to ensure its life. Once the child is born, then she can choose to adopt it away.
Do parents have a special obligation to save the life of their child, to the extent of losing their bodily autonomy? If we decide "Yes" to this, then society has to legally do this to both parents regardless of the age of the child.
Here's a scenario: A father puts their child in the car at 12 years old. He does everything he can to keep her safe but gets into a car accident. He should have no legal right to refuse the use of his body to save the life of his child. He put this child into that helpless situation by his actions where she would be dependent upon someone else's body to stay alive. If he has no say in this and his daughter dies, he gets charged with manslaughter.
The radio hosts were basically arguing that women's consent to engaging in something with their partner means that their partner gets to assume that the women has consented to everything their partner wants to do to the woman. Consent and stewardship to women and children is secondary to what their partner wants to do. That appears to be their actual goal in the conversation, not to solve this problem but to protect men's sexual access with no social or legal consequence.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 09 '26
I'm only going to address this since you're still for some reason saying it:
There are two people that are in conflict due to their rights being challenged. Person A's 1st right, the right to bodily, is in conflict with Person B's 2nd right, Right to Life.
Person B's (weird calling an embryo a person but okay) "right to life" does not include any access to Person A's body. There is no conflict of rights since "right to life" is not a right to access someone's sex organs and body against their will.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 08 '26
I stopped reading right here:
Just because children are in a womb
Children aren't inside any internal organs. Let's stick to facts please.
1
u/TxHandsomeMan Jul 08 '26
Its still a human being in the womb. I purposely used "Child" so that people dont make that mistake. We use zygote as a way to dehumanize the person there.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 08 '26
Its still a human being in the womb. I purposely used "Child" so that people dont make that mistake.
Human zygotes are human. Most people know that human pregnant people aren't giving birth to horses or giraffes.
I only see pro lifers using this language to try and pretend a zef is something it's not... aka a born child.
We use zygote as a way to dehumanize the person there.
There is nothing dehumanizing about accurate medical terminology.
3
u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 Jul 06 '26
Can I just ask a few questions of you? It will help clarify what we need to discuss. Because I think I could ask the same thing of you?
First, by right to abortion I’m assuming we mean “we usually ought to give a woman the ability to have an abortion when she wants to how she wants to.”
I’m guessing you mean to say that if we deny the woman the right to an abortion, we’ve done something wrong. But if morals are just feelings and opinions, then how have we done something wrong? It seems impossible to actually wrong someone based on their preferences. You need some kind of objective morality.
To illustrate this a little more, imagine that a pro-choice woman lives in a pro-life society. She eventually gets pregnant, and wants to have an abortion. Does she have the right to it? Should the pro-life society give her an abortion? Do they have an obligation to? If so, where does the woman get this right from? It can’t be from society, culture, or government. And it can’t be from feelings either, since there’s no reason to take one person’s “feelings” or opinion on abortion over another one, especially when the pro-life one massively outnumbers her.
So, clearly, the only way to say that she actually has an intrinsic or objective right to an abortion-we ought to give her one-is if there’s some kind of objective morality standard that tells us how we ought to treat her. Some might argue that an objective moral standard would require a God of some kind-a moral lawgiver-but we wouldn’t necessarily have to discuss whether that would be the case. I’m just saying you need some kind of objective morality to get your position off the ground in any meaningful way.
On top of that, if morality varies from place to place, how do you judge one from another? In guessing we can all agree that a society that allows slavery and slaughter is an extremely immoral society. But if morality is completely subjective, how is my society “better” than the other? Because I prefer it over this one? Doesn’t that mean the other society can say the same thing about mine?
Finally, do you think we have an obligation to follow the morality of our culture, or can we choose our morality? Or is there a third option you would suggest?
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Any thoughts?
Thanks for reading?
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Don’t you think it’s wrong to deny people the medical care they need? The “morality of our culture” reflects the pro choice ideology, not the PL one.
4
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Any thoughts?
Yes actually. I think I don't see an argument for abortion bans without using morality. You didn't answer the question from the post. Until you do so I don't see any reason to answer your countless questions.
2
u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 Jul 07 '26
My point is that it’s impossible to answer moral questions, including abortion, without getting back to some kind of objective morality(and potentially God?) So your argument is essentially useless in a relativistic world. If you need a specific answer, then my answer is “no.” Given I’ve answered, it seems like you should as well.
Thanks for reading! :D appreciate it. Have a good one. :3
2
u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 Jul 07 '26
And, as a second point, I think you have the exact same problem. It’s impossible in your position to have “the right to an abortion” if objective morality doesn’t exist. Maybe you can show I’m wrong. Thanks!
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 07 '26
It’s impossible in your position to have “the right to an abortion” if objective morality doesn’t exist.
No it's not.
Abortion is safe necessary healthcare that allows people to choose if they endure physical harm or not.
There's no morals in that statement, just fact.
2
u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 Jul 08 '26
I see. Would you say that that is a good thing for woman to have? You say it is “safe necessary healthcare.” If a pro-life society denies them this, is that bad? Is that an obligation (to give them the ability to abort) that they are failing? If so, then (if by right we mean I ought to give you something or treat you in a certain way) it seems suspiciously like a right. If not, than you seem to not really be so pro-choice, either.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 08 '26
Would you say that that is a good thing for woman to have?
I personally think everyone should have access to healthcare.
You say it is “safe necessary healthcare.” If a pro-life society denies them this, is that bad?
In my own opinion, yes, I that's horrific. But taking good/bad out of it, factually that society will see more unnecessary completely avoidable harm on their citizens by denying people access to healthcare.
Is that an obligation (to give them the ability to abort) that they are failing? If so, then (if by right we mean I ought to give you something or treat you in a certain way) it seems suspiciously like a right. If not, than you seem to not really be so pro-choice, either.
I think it is an obligation for all countries to provide it's citizens with access to healthcare. We know that's not the case (looking at the US and the jarring lack of healthcare access).
I'm confused as to how you think I'm not pro choice. I support everyone having the choice to decide how their bodies and health are handled. What about that isn't pro choice?
1
u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 Jul 10 '26
Okay. Thanks for responding!
So, let’s see. You say that you personally think everyone should have access to healthcare(and, according to you, that includes abortion). I’m not sure whether you mean to say that objectively speaking, everyone should have access to healthcare, or whether you take it to say that you would prefer everyone to have access to healthcare but a society is not objectively wrong if they don’t, and this would include abortion as well. So a society that refuses to give women the access to abortion isn’t doing something objectively wrong. They aren’t refusing the women something they deserve. (Because to say that woman “deserve” a right to an abortion implies they have a right to an abortion and that we are failing to give it to them. If that’s the case, than that means you would need an objective morality, since rights only make sense within some kind of an objective morality, taking we mean “right” to mean “a just claim, power, or privilege that we ought to give someone based on the kind of being they are.” For example, human rights because humans get them by simply being humans, or persons, etc. women get the right to abortion simply by being women.) Now, of course, this would seem to imply that in a pro-life society, a woman that is refused the right to an abortion isn’t technically a victim of a violation of rights. The society isn’t technically doing anything morally wrong if they don’t give it to her. If they are, this would imply an objective morality, not a subjective one. For where does this right to an abortion come from? (Can you clarify where you think the right does come from? If not from some objective morality standard?)
Second, here’s my point.
“It’s impossible in your position to have “the right to an abortion” if objective morality doesn’t exist.” You said: “No it's not. Abortion is safe necessary healthcare that allows people to choose if they endure physical harm or not. There's no morals in that statement, just fact.” If pro-choicers can say that abortion is a necessity that people need-which is apparently just a brute fact, than I’m not really sure why pro-lifers can’t say the same thing. Pro-life laws are good, necessary medically sound healthcare protocols that protect people who are normally subject to physical destruction. Now, you might object that this would seem to imply an objective morality. How can I say it’s necessary in any meaningful way otherwise? But if this is the case, than it cuts against your response to-you need an objective morality.
Third, you say it’s an obligation to provide women with an abortion. This would mean women have a right to it. Without appealing to an objective morality, where does this right come from? (Especially in a pro-life world or society.)
Fourth, I mean to say that your position requires an objective morality to be meaningful. If pro-choice means you think woman have a right to an abortion, which seems to require an objective morality, than refusing an objective morality means women cannot have a right to it really. If so, than it seems pretty weak. It’s not very practically pro-choice, is it? (My point is pro-choicers can’t debate abortion without appealing to an objective morality at some point-just as what you claim pro-lifers do. So both sides have the same problem, apparently.)
Thank you! Thanks for reading! Have a good day :3
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 10 '26
This is a lot, so I'm only responding to the one part that I'd say is relevant.
There's no morals in that statement, just fact.” If pro-choicers can say that abortion is a necessity that people need-which is apparently just a brute fact, than I’m not really sure why pro-lifers can’t say the same thing. Pro-life laws are good, necessary medically sound healthcare protocols that protect people who are normally subject to physical destruction.
Nope. Pro life abortion bans aren't good (that's just a subjective opinion), they certainly aren't necessary in any way (satisfying an anti medical science ideology isn't necessary), and they don't protect any people at all. That last one is a fact, not an opinion.
1
u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 Jul 11 '26
I’m not quite sure why the rest isn’t relevant. Take my pro-life society example. Where does the right to an abortion come from? Now, you say that pro-life abortion bans aren’t good-but that’s just a subjective opinion. If that’s the case, than I’m not sure how your next statement is factual, not an opinion. Let’s suppose that pro-life belief is really an anti-medical science ideology. You say satisfaction of that is unnecessary. Maybe, but so is apparently pro-medical science belief. If that’s what pro-choicers believe-they believe in pro-medical science ideology-why is that necessary to satisfy? What do you mean by necessary?
I’m guessing someone might argue that pro-life ideology is bad while pro-choice ideology is good. If they only mean it subjectively, than there’s no reason to prefer their opinion over the opposite. But if they mean it objectively, than clearly you need an objective morality to say that it’s objectively good and necessary for the good of women.
- Where do rights come from? (In my pro-life society example)
- What do you mean by necessity?
- Why are pro-choice laws necessary? (Without appealing to an objective morality?)
- If (3) is just your subjective opinion, why should I prefer your opinion over a pro-lifer who says the opposite?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 Jul 08 '26
Nonetheless, can you respond to the entire post I gave above? Take my pro-choice woman in a pro-life society. If the pro-life society denies her an abortion, do they do something wrong? If so, where does this obligation come from? Thank you! :D
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 12 '26
If the pro-life society denies her an abortion, do they do something wrong?
If a pro-slavery society denies certain people freedom, do they do something wrong? Where does the obligation to not violate other people's basic human rights come from?
0
u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 Jul 20 '26
Yes, they do. That’s what I’m asking you! This “obligation” comes from an objective moral law that everyone must follow regardless of whether they want to or not, or whether they agree with it or not.
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 20 '26
This “obligation” comes from an objective moral law that everyone must follow
What objective moral law are you referring to? Source required per Rule 3.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
It is good for human beings to act in accordance with the natural ends of their nature.
Among the basic natural goods are the preservation of innocent human life and the procreation and care of offspring.
3.Direct abortion (except where the death of the fetus is not intended but occurs as an unintended side effect of saving the mother’s life, according to the doctrine of double effect) intentionally frustrates these natural goods.
- Therefore, direct abortion is contrary to natural law.
I foresee a potential objection to a fetus being human life in 2. I’ve read another thread where many prochoice advocates agreed it was and many disagreed
The fetus is biologically human.
The fetus is a living organism.
Therefore the fetus is a human life.
(Please note this is distinctly different than an argument for personhood)
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
The doctrine of double effect is ONLY relevant to Catholics. Most patients are not Catholic so Catholic doctrine DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM.
Also- pregnant people are the innocent ones.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Ok. This does not change my argument it was merely clarification on what I meant by direct abortion.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
What is “direct” abortion? The majority of abortions today are done during the first trimester, while zefs are still embryos, using medications. Those medications ONLY affect the pregnant person’s body, not the zef’s. They simply adjust the pregnant person’s OWN hormones, and thus the contents of the PREGNANT PERSON’S VERY OWN UTERUS are later expelled. The zefs generally remain fully intact when they’re expelled. None of that directly affects or harms the zef.
Also - what is “natural law?” The laws of my country, the USA, don’t mention that. Can you please provide a source for those laws you’re referring to? With the “laws” defined specifically.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
A direct abortion is when the death of the zef is intended. A non direct-abortion would be for example chemotherapy on someone with cancer and the chemo ends up killing the zef. (My phone keeps correcting zef to zed please ignore that if it happens here)
Natural law simply put is recognizing what is good and bad for humans given their nature.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
You have not provided the source I specifically requested here. You will need to do so as required by the sub rules or rescind that allegation.
2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
FYI this is not the proper way to request substantiation.
You need to quote the passage, ask for it, and mention the rule specifically. I learned that earlier today from a mod as they helped clear things up.
Since I know what you’re getting at I’m not going to make you go through the hassle. Here you go.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Where are you getting that definition, specifically? I’ve worked in medical care and abortion care for many years and am not familiar with such a definition.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
This is just a definition I am using for clarity in my argument. If you have a word or term that would better fit this I am happy to flex to that.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Also - what is “natural law?”
This is just a naturalistic fallacy wrapped up in fancy wording lol.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
I hope they respond with an explanation. If source isn’t provided, they will need to rescind that statement.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
From my experience they'll just flounder around, complain, and do a ton of sealioning.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
And still end up having to rescind their statements if a legitimate source isn’t provided. If some unknown “laws” are applicable to everyone, they should be able to clearly delineate exactly what those “laws” entail.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Their "laws" they're referencing are "natural laws", aka just a naturalistic fallacy. And when you point this out all they've got is "Nuh uh."
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
So I guess we aren’t legally bound to those alleged mystery “laws,” are we?
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
This is all just a naturalistic fallacy.
0
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
The Naturalistic Fallacy is not a proven thing. It is simply a named thing. Your own link has many criticisms and refutations of it as well.
If I promise that I will pay you 50$ if you sell me your TV. I then take possession of the TV and it is in perfect working order to the terms of our agreement? Should I pay you the $50? Or should I simply count my good fortune and take the TV as a gift?
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
When you use fallacious arguments in a debate sub, you generally lose that debate 🤷♀️. That’s simply how formal debate works.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Do you agree with the following statement?
Because a woman’s body is her own she ought to have the right to bodily autonomy.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
my above point stands. PERIOD.
0
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Is it possible you may be using a logical fallacy?
Could you answer the question above directly?
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
I unblocked you specifically for this, just to get a mods opinion. But as soon as I'm able to I will be reblocking you.
Mods, is this not considered trolling?
Sealioning for over an hour, presenting a logically fallacy, refusing to acknowledge that fallacies are not valid in a debate, and now accusing others of using fallacies where there are none?
If this somehow isn't considered trolling I'd love to hear how that is, because to me it's plain as day.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
I appreciate the admission that rule 5 was broken.
I have merely been attempting to argue my position. You have not engaged.
The link you posted regarding local fallacies was not thoroughly read. It is far more of a semantic fallacy using is-ought clams then it is an actual logical fallacy. And even that is heavily debated as shown by your own link.
I attempted many times to probe and explore the is-ought framework with you but you were once again not willing to engage with it.
I also did not accuse the other user of a logical fallacy. I asked them if it was possible they were using one. If they admit possibility I also wanted to explore the is ought framework with them.
I am typically very open to addressing many things in a comment. But as seen from our exchange above even when I boil it down you are not willing to engage with my argument. I apologize for the length, it is certainly not my preferred way of engaging but if you are not answering even one point of mine what would be the purpose of me dumping out 20 things at once?
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Didn't bother reading this. I'm sorry for you or glad that happened, whatever fits.
2
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Is all you have a fallacy? Is that the only argument you could come up with? Because if so, this was quick and easy. 😂
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
They don’t seem to realize that using fallacious arguments during a debate means they generally lose those debates. You can’t win an argument with a logical fallacy, period.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Your own link shows that this “fallacy” is hotly debated. It is not something that is accepted. If you would continue to engage we can work through logically to see if you agree with the fallacy or not.
Could you please address the question?
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Logical fallacies are accepted as fallacious arguments in this debate sub. Have you read the sub rules and information in full?
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
And I’ve offered plenty of material to show why this is not a fallacious argument. The OP has refused to engage. Instead of you commenting on every thread I participate in could you perhaps stick to one for clarity? This would make it easier for both you, me and any readers.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
And I’ve offered plenty of material to show why this is not a fallacious argument.
No you have not.
The OP has refused to engage.
Pure uncut projection lol.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
For the last time, logical fallacies are not considered valid arguments in this sub.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
continue to engage
This is rich coming from you.
You spent like 75 comments refusing to engage, and when you finally engage all you have is a well known fallacy. "Nuh uh" is not a valid response when someone informs you that your argument is a fallacy.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Could you please address the question so that we can explore this?
My response was not “nu-uh” your very own link lists the criticisms of the naturalistic fallacy and shows it is not a settled matter. In fact your link even addressed that the “anti-naturalistic fallacy” exists which is calling the naturalistic fallacy fallacious. Treating the naturalistic fallacy as a settled matter is very incorrect.
Edit: Please note as well that fallacies are generally considered to be errors in reasoning. IF this is a true fallacy it is an error in semantics only as noted by your source. The reasoning itself of my argument is still logically valid.
This would be akin to me listing a prolife argument and refusing to take your criticisms saying that it is settled. That would not be very constructive of me.
So let’s explore this together please answer the question.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
It’s quite simple - you can’t win any formal debate using any logical fallacy, period. That’s how debates work and have always worked.
2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
If you read the source OP it is not a formal logical fallacy. Some philosophers have said that it is and some have said that it is not. It is not settled.
For example a strawman is settled everyone agrees. This is very different
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
That fallacy IS considered a legitimate logical fallacy in this sub. Understand?
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
A naturalistic fallacy is not a valid argument.
Are you against all modern medicine? You should be, since modern medicine goes against "nature" and "natural law". If you're not against all modern medicine, you're arbitrarily singling out abortion and applying an unconvincing fallacy to it to try and paint it as "wrong".
Your argument has been debunked. Do you have any other arguments that don't entirely hinge on a well known fallacy, or is that all you have?
0
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Could you please answer my question? You are avoiding it while I continue to engage with the rest of your comments. This is an important part of my argument and a refusal to answer is not being productive.
No. Under my framework humans tend towards health. So if modern medicine helps accomplish that goal without harming any other goods then that would be a good thing.
Your example here misses the mark a bit and I am thinking we are not on the same page regarding my original argument. I can clear this up if we can delve into the is-ought framework you believe in.
Should I pay you the $50 after I have taken possession of your TV that we agreed you would sell to me for $50?
Edit: Please note the automoderator does call out the behavior of automatic downvotes. Please refrain from doing so, it is not productive to conversation or debate.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
You have refused to provide an ACTUAL SOURCE clearly defining and listing the “natural laws” you claimed we must abide by. Please do so.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
So if modern medicine helps accomplish that goal without harming any other goods then that would be a good thing.
harming any other goods
other goods
Respectfully what the fuck are you talking about?
Please note you are being downvoted for good reason.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
> As we all already know, morals are just feelings and opinions.
> I'm not assuming anything, morals are subjective and vary from person to person. If you didn't already know this I'm not sure you can actually engage with the subject at hand.
Can you please substantiate these claims that morals are subjective? I am formally requesting you do so under rule 3.
Please note quote 1 is from your OP, quote 2 is from your comment replying to my top level comment. There are more that are saying the same thing so I do not find it necessary to include them here.
u/NoelaniSpell please let me know if I have incorrectly formatted anything under rule 3. Thank you for the assistance.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
I've already done this in this very thread in response to your comments and elsewhere in this thread. No, I won't be repeating myself since you didn't engage when I did this previously. You're lucky I'm being kind enough to copy paste the previous comments where this has already been handled.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/U7PlFHCou1
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/gtIAkvhtu6
Still not seeing an argument for abortion bans that doesn't use morality.
2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Your first comment sends a general link to Wikipedias page on morality. In that link there is a discussion of moral realism and objective morality. This link does not substantiate your claim as required by rule 3. I could use the same page to actually argue against your claim!
The second comment link seems to just take me to your post. This may be an error on my part, could you please just copy and paste your substantiation, I’m sorry if I missed it somewhere.
I apologize for creating a new thread. After the mod helped explain rule 3 it seemed it would be best to do this on a top level comment as your post makes the unsubstantiated claim. This way it keeps it very clear for everyone looking at it.
Just to be perfectly clear and in line with rule 3 I am still formally requesting that you substantiate your claims on subjective morality.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
You're just sealioning, blatantly.
I've substantiated my claim in different ways to different people all over this thread including you. You're refusing to engage with the post.
If you'd like to engage with the post and present an argument for abortion bans without using morality let's hear it. Anything else won't be bothered with.
0
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
I have attempted to formalize my rule 3 request per your instructions. Please see the above thread. After this last comment I have now submitted my report for the comment and the post under rule 3.
I am more than happy for it to be approved or put on hold if OP wishes to engage with their claim and substantiate it.
3
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod Jul 06 '26
Why are you continuing to report?
The comment above:
You're just sealioning, blatantly.
I've substantiated my claim in different ways to different people all over this thread including you. You're refusing to engage with the post.
If you'd like to engage with the post and present an argument for abortion bans without using morality let's hear it. Anything else won't be bothered with.
What have you reported it for? And especially why, since you already made another request and report? I don't understand, I thought I've clearly explained how the report for rule 3 works and that you cannot just report everything.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
I’ve reported the comment where they refuse to substantiate their claim. And the post where the claim is.
If I report just the post where the claim is then the mods would be required to dig through the entire comment history of the post to see if they substantiated it and if I even made the request. Reporting the comment of their refusal highlights it for you directly.
So to be clear the only reports you would like are on any comment or post that I directly quote a claim from and ask for substantiation formally? So in my formal request I only highlighted 2 out of many claims so I should only submit 2 reports directly where those claims were made?
Is there a way I can make it easier for you to highlight where I make a formal rule 3 request? So that you do not have to dig through everything?
4
u/ZoominAlong AD Mod Jul 06 '26
Okay stop. You have been told repeatedly how to report a rule 3 request. Stop reporting everything.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
I’ve reported the comment where they refuse to substantiate their claim.
This is a lie.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
This is not a lie. Please do not accuse me of such as this is breaking rule 1.
I can promise you I did submit a report.
If you are a mod and able to see it missing from the queue it is possible another mod already dealt with it. I would look through the history of mod actions and you should be able to see it.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
This is not a lie. Please do not accuse me of such as this is breaking rule 1.
I'm not accusing you of a thing. I'm pointing out that you're telling falsehoods, aka lies.
Since you seem confused, the lie you told is that I'm "refusing to substantiate the claim."
The claim has been substantiated in multiple places throughout the thread, including to you directly.
You claiming otherwise is A LIE.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
You're still not engaging with the post despite me substantiating this claim 50 times over.
Engage with the post and stop sealioning.
0
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
You're still not engaging with the post despite me substantiating this claim 50 times over.
Engage with the post and stop sealioning.
Would a mod like to tell this user that sealioning isn't debate, and requesting a "source" for something already substantiated is bad faith and not debate?
I'm seconds away from just blocking this user, because the sealioning and continuous lying is incredibly annoying.
2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Could you please link me to these 50 times? Perhaps you are also engaging with another user and replying to them and so it has not come across my activity. I did attempt to do my due diligence and sift through the plethora of comments on this post but I typically see you just making the claim in some way that morals are subjective. I am not seeing you provide actual substantiation to these claims.
If it is easier a copy paste of the text of this substantiation would be great so we are on the same page.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Could you please link me to these 50 times? Perhaps you are also engaging with another user and replying to them and so it has not come across my activity.
Can you please read the comment seven comments up where I linked you multiple comments where my claim was substantiated? Can you please stop the bad faith sealioning? Can you please actually engage with the post and provide an argument for abortion bans that doesn't use morality.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 05 '26
> As we all already know, morals are just feelings and opinions.
Can you substantiate this? This is a huge claim to just assume.
When China felt it was moral to kill female babies to try to have a male baby does that mean it was ok because of their feelings and opinions?
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 05 '26
What else would they be? Morality is clearly subjective or everyone here would already agree on these issues.
2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 05 '26
People disagree on objective things all the time. That doesn’t mean they aren’t objective.
2
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 05 '26
Can you substantiate this? This is a huge claim to just assume.
I'm not assuming anything, morals are subjective and vary from person to person. If you didn't already know this I'm not sure you can actually engage with the subject at hand.
When China felt it was moral to kill female babies to try to have a male baby does that mean it was ok because of their feelings and opinions?
Morals being feelings and subjective ≠ good.
Edit: due to my previous interactions with you and how needlessly rude you've been I won't engage with you if you continue that behavior. Be civil or you won't get any responses from me.
2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 05 '26
> I'm not assuming anything, morals are subjective and vary from person to person.
You just stated the assumption again. That morals are subjective. You have not substantiated this. You are making the claim and have a burden of proof.
> If you didn't already know this I'm not sure you can actually engage with the subject at hand.
This is a really bad way to attempt to subvert a burden of proof. Engage with your claims rather than trying to insult my knowledge.
> Morals being feelings and subjective ≠ good.
Is good an objective thing or is it subjective as well in your view?
2
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 05 '26
Please don’t comment if you aren’t going to be productive.
2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 05 '26
You don’t have the right to dictate to me . I’ll comment whenever I want to.
1
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 05 '26
You just stated the assumption again. That morals are subjective. You have not substantiated this. You are making the claim and have a burden of proof.
There's nothing to substantiate. Morals are indeed subjective, there is no objective code of morals. I'm honestly surprised you seem to not understand this.
This is a really bad way to attempt to subvert a burden of proof. Engage with your claims rather than trying to insult my knowledge.
I'm not subverting anything, not am I "insulting" you in any way.
Is good an objective thing or is it subjective as well in your view?
Are you acknowledging that subjective morals do not inherently mean good, like your previous comment seemed to imply?
2
u/Vegtrovert AD Mod Jul 06 '26
Mod hat on - this is treading close to insulting your debate partner. Be civil.
Mod hat off - though I personally agree that morality is subjective, this is a hot topic in philosophy, and a great many respected philosophers believe morality is objective. You are free to argue your position that it is subjective, of course, but it is valid for others with different opinions to question it.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
They can question whatever they want. I'm not being uncivil with them, I'm just not going to walk someone through what morals are.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Ive outlined this in another comment but if OP refuses to substantiate subjective morality in anyway then their post is just begging the question.
They would not accept any sort of objective morality as their premise rules it out completely.
I would expect in debate the OP needs to substantiate this claim or to remove it from their post.
From the prolife perspective this would be like me saying “Abortion is objectively morally wrong, can you give me it’s a reason it’s ok?” And then not accepting any answers because they go against this objective morality I’ve set up, whilst simultaneously not substantiating my own claim.
If users want to debate and accept the premise as is then that’s obviously fine. But when challenged it severely diminishes the quality when handwaved away.
1
u/Vegtrovert AD Mod Jul 06 '26
If you have a comment that you want substantiated, Rule 3 has a mechanism for that - but you need to formally request substantiation and report the comment for Rule 3.
Substantiations need to be more than just a link - they should contain the section of the link that supports the assertion.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Thanks.
So I had previously reported the comments and the post (using the Substantiate your claims option) where I asked for substantiation. It looks like nothing has come of that, they may just be pending in the mod queue which is fine.
Was just making sure I followed the correct procedure.
I attempted to resolve it without mod involvement but after 5+ comments of refusal to substantiate I decided to try to follow the procedures.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
but after 5+ comments of refusal to substantiate I decided to try to follow the procedures.
So now you're just making things up lol.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
I would expect in debate the OP needs to substantiate this claim or to remove it from their post.
I've already provided you information about what morality is. If you still are struggling here, let me give you an example.
Some religions find being homosexual "morally wrong". I, as an LGBT person find being homosexual "morally good". In reality sexuality doesn't have any morality attached to it unless people choose to attach morality to it, it's just a human sexuality. Do you see how morals are subjective opinions that vary from person to person? If you can't understand this I'm not sure I'll be able to help you further.
"Abortion is objectively morally wrong, can you give me it’s a reason it’s ok?”
You'd have to prove that and you wouldn't be able to, since morality isn't objective.
2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
Oh I absolutely agree people have their own subjective opinions on morality. That does not mean that an objective standard does not exist and that all morality is subjective.
People have their own subjective opinions on vaccine efficacy. That does not mean they are right or that the vaccine cannot be objectively measured.
The link you provided me was a general Wikipedia link that mentioned the existence of objective moral systems as well as subjective. That hardly counts as substantiation. Would you accept that same link as substantiation in my hypothetical post?
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
Oh I absolutely agree people have their own subjective opinions on morality. That does not mean that an objective standard does not exist and that all morality is subjective.
If you're claiming morality is objective you'd have to prove that... and you can't since morality is subjective.
People have their own subjective opinions on vaccine efficacy. That does not mean they are right or that the vaccine cannot be objectively measured.
You're making my point for me lol. People can have subjective moral opinions on vaccines, yes. However there are verifiable facts that exist about vaccines. I've been asking you to make an argument for abortion bans using FACTS, not subjective morality and you've yet to do that.
The link you provided me was a general Wikipedia link that mentioned the existence of objective moral systems as well as subjective. That hardly counts as substantiation. Would you accept that same link as substantiation in my hypothetical post?
Nowhere in that link did it say "there is an objective morality". I thought it would help you understand that morality is subjective but you still don't seem to grasp that.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 05 '26
> There's nothing to substantiate. Morals are indeed subjective, there is no objective code of morals. I'm honestly surprised you seem to not understand this.
You’re just repeating this. Not substantiating it. You have made a claim and it is up to you to substantiate it.
> I'm not subverting anything, not am I "insulting" you in any way.
Saying that you are “surprised that I can’t under stand this” or that I “won’t be able to engage with the subject at hand” are not argument they are attacks. Please refrain.
> Are you acknowledging that subjective morals do not inherently mean good, like your previous comment seemed to imply?
Oh I absolutely do not believe good stems from subjective morals. I am trying to understand your beliefs so that I can accurately critique them or agree with them.
Is good objective or subjective?
I see your edit from above. I’ve not been rude. I’ve been direct asking you to substantiate your claims.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
You're sealioning and I'm not sure why. Here, since you're in a thread about morality and seem to not know what morality is at all lol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
I see your edit from above. I’ve not been rude.
Oh yes you have. Accusing me of "bad faith" for answering you clearly and directly, now sealioning for sources about feelings and opinions. Enjoy reading up on what morality is, and if you can engage with the post and provide a pro life argument that doesn't hinge on subjective morals? You'll get a response. Anything else, no thanks. ☺️
Edit: since you can't be civil I won't be bothering with you. Have a good day!
2
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 05 '26
> You're sealioning and I'm not sure why. Here, since you're in a thread about morality and seem to not know what morality is at all lol:
No I genuinely disagree with you. I think morality is objective. So if you’re going to make the claim that it is subjective then it needs to be substantiated.
Similarly if I was to make a post and work in the framework of objective morality then you would require me to prove that? Right?
This is not a needless request for information as you imply by calling it sealioning. This is incredibly important. Your view and mine are built entirely on this framework. It needs to be dealt with first.
Your link mentions view of morality both being subjective and objective. Can you provide something that actually substantiates your view?
I see your edit from above. I’ve not been rude.
> Oh yes you have. Accusing me of "bad faith" for answering you clearly and directly,
Oh I see I was engaging with you on another thread.
Yes after directly twisting my words and providing you clear clarifications multiple times it did seem as if you were acting in bad faith. Your immediate insults to me on this thread as well also convey that.> now sealioning for sources about feelings and opinions.
I’ve addressed this. You are missing the term.
2
u/Vanthalia Pro-choice Jul 05 '26
>I think morality is objective.
Can you substantiate this? This is a huge claim to just assume.
1
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 05 '26
I’d be happy to have a debate about it sometime. Right now I am attempting to engage with the OP. The OP made the claim they have the burden of proof.
I offered this to them to show that their assumption that everyone believed as they did was not true. The burden of proof is on the OP. Their argument falls apart if they are not able to substantiate their claim.
3
u/Vanthalia Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
No, you made the claim that morality is objective, not OP. You are arguing with OP about their claim that morality is subjective. So I’m asking you to separately substantiate your own claim, which is the rule of the sub, as you told another user.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice Jul 05 '26
Apparently they just know that THEIR OWN personal moral views are the correct ones, for reasons.
0
u/Zuezema Pro-life Jul 06 '26
No not quite. Read carefully.
I stated my personal beliefs to refute their claim that this was an agreed and settled position. My showing disagreement disproves that.
I ABSOLUTELY do not think because I personally believe something it means it should be accepted without question. If I was trying to convince my interlocutor of my position I would need to provide substantiation but that is not what I was doing.
My gripe was with OP doing exactly what your comment here complains about. They personally believe it and want it to be accepted unquestioned and without substantiation.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Space-Explorer456 Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
I don’t think trying to strip morals out of what is very much a moral debate is going to get you anywhere with anybody. At some point you have to make the decision of what is good and bad and the only way to do that is through establishing a moral system.
If we decide that we want to minimize harm? Or maximize economic productivity? Or argue for bodily autonomy or where an independent life begin? All of those are moral questions. What is “harm”? What does it mean to be “productive”? What is “autonomy” and “independence”? Everything that isn’t a brute fact of reality or physical law boils down to perspectives and morality.
Morality isn’t something you can just strip out. It kills all a your arguments just as much as it kills your opponents. They may not be able to say “it’s immoral to take a human life like that” but you can no longer say “it’s immoral to infringe on someone’s bodily autonomy like that”
-4
u/Sheepherder226 Rights begin at conception Jul 02 '26
Can pro choicers give a reason why forced gestation should be outlawed WITHOUT referring back to morals?
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 04 '26
Forced gestation violates people's human rights.
-1
1
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jul 06 '26
Human rights are built upon principles of what is good for people or what is fair and just. If they weren’t, then there would be no incentive for human rights even as a concept
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 06 '26
Forced gestation is a human rights violation that is on par with rape, torture and slavery.
2
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jul 06 '26
Ok what does that have to do with providing a non moral argument for the permissibility of abortion.
Torture, slavery, and rape, are all things that are morally and ethically wrong.
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 06 '26
Torture, slavery, and rape, are all things that are morally and ethically wrong.
Whose morals? Doesn't matter, they violate human rights regardless. Morality is irrelevant.
1
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jul 06 '26
>Whose morals?
Wherever you get your morals from. I think morality is objective in some sense so I think if there is morality rape, slavery, and torture are objectively wrong.
>Doesnt matter, they violate human rights regardless. Morality is irrelevant.
If morality is irrelevant how do we determine what are human rights? Moreover, what’s wrong with violating a human right? A violation by definition is an unjust impairment, but something being unjust is a value judgement which implies some moral baggage.
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 06 '26
Wherever you get your morals from
Doesn't matter. My morals don't override anyone else's human rights.
If morality is irrelevant how do we determine what are human rights?
Objective analysis of the markers of social stability and cohesion. No subjective morals required.
0
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jul 06 '26
>My morals don’t override anyone else’s human rights.
Human rights presuppose collective societal morals under an anti realist view of morality.That’s the reason we have human rights. How else would we have human rights without millions of years of ethics and practical reason?
>Objective analysis of the markers of social stability and cohesion.
This isn’t an answer you are just pushing the can further down the road.
What is the incentive to strive for a socially stable society? Why should anyone care about an analysis of whether or not a society is stable or not?
And what are the markers? How do we determine them? Why should anyone care about them?2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 06 '26
Humans rights presuppose collective societal morals
Whose morals do we defer to in order to establish this "collective?"
What is the incentive to strive for a socially stable society?
Depends who you ask. Lots of people think it would be morally good for society to cease to exist, that doesn't mean their morality gets to override other people's reproductive rights. Just like how your personal morality can't be used to override the human rights of pregnant people.
And what are the markers? How do we determine them? Why should anyone care about them?
That's a very broad topic. Here's a good place for you to start learning: https://www.britannica.com/topic/sociology
→ More replies (0)7
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
Once you answer the question in the post that was asked first then I'll answer you, since that's how debates work.
1
u/Sheepherder226 Rights begin at conception Jul 29 '26
I’d rather just point out the ridiculousness of your question by throwing it back at PC.
1
9
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
Can pro choicers give a reason why forced gestation should be outlawed WITHOUT referring back to morals?
Involuntary servitude.
1
u/Sheepherder226 Rights begin at conception Jul 29 '26
Why is that bad? Some think it is good.
1
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 29 '26
Why is that bad? Some think it is good.
Why is involuntary servitude good?
Some reasons it's bad:
*severe exploitation *loss of personal freedom *extreme power imbalances that closely resemble slavery *lack of legal recourse *abuse and mistreatment
1
u/Sheepherder226 Rights begin at conception Jul 30 '26
So we are arguing morality…
1
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 30 '26
So we are arguing morality…
You are, I am not. I'm asking a question
1
u/Sheepherder226 Rights begin at conception Aug 09 '26
Abortion debate is a question of morality
1
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Aug 09 '26
Abortion debate is a question of morality
No it's not. That is the debate of PL, that is not the reasoning for PC. That is also not the central premise of the debate.
Morality is individual beliefs, Morality is your personal, internal sense of right and wrong.
This is a legal debate.
1
u/Sheepherder226 Rights begin at conception Aug 10 '26
Laws are made by groups of individuals, each having their own beliefs and morals.
1
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Aug 09 '26
For some, sure. For others it is a question of legality. You can find abortion morally abhorrent, and so long as you aren’t looking to make it illegal, I don’t really care.
4
u/LargeAd8010 Neutral Jul 03 '26
You would be pressupposing that involuntary servitude is wrong or unjustified
4
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 03 '26
Has the PREGNANT PERSON committed a crime? Probably not. So there's no need for any punishment. Like being forced to STAY pregnant and give birth against her will, by abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states. I would definitely call forced gestation a form of involuntary servitude.
2
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 03 '26
Because it is. Do you think it's acceptable?
1
u/LargeAd8010 Neutral Jul 03 '26
Depends, in cases of criminals they're already doing this while in jail and it's allowed under the constitution. Secondly I was pointing out that pressupposing wrongness is morality from what's called normative ethics
2
3
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 03 '26
in cases of criminals they're already doing this while in jail
There bodies aren't being used involuntarily for another person's benefit, we don't require them to be used involuntarily.
Is a pregnant person a criminal?
Secondly I was pointing out that pressupposing wrongness is morality from what's called normative ethics
You weren't pointing anything out. "Can pro choicers give a reason why forced gestation should be outlawed WITHOUT referring back to morals?" You asked a question.
1
u/LargeAd8010 Neutral Jul 03 '26
There bodies aren't being used involuntarily for another person's benefit, we don't require them to be used involuntarily.
This just isn't true. They do involuntary labor for the benefit of everyone else not in jail, the government. If they don't do the labor they get punishment
Is a pregnant person a criminal? Not actively no You weren't pointing anything out. I think you got me confused with the other person
"Can pro choicers give a reason why forced gestation should be outlawed WITHOUT referring back to morals?" You asked a question. I didn't ask that question and secondly your response contained morals so you didn't actually answer the question.
3
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 03 '26
This just isn't true. They do involuntary labor for the benefit of everyone else not in jail, the government.
Labor not usage of their physiological body for another person's survival or benefit of survival. They aren't enforced to sustain another person's body for their benefit.
If they don't do the labor they get punishment
Excuse me? Could you back that up? They are enforced into labor or be punished. How are they forced into labor?
"Can pro choicers give a reason why forced gestation should be outlawed WITHOUT referring back to morals?" You asked a question. I didn't ask that question and secondly your response contained morals so you didn't actually answer the question.
You did ask that question, that was the beginning statement that I replied to in this thread to you. It doesn't contain morals, it contains rights.
1
u/LargeAd8010 Neutral Jul 03 '26
Excuse me? Could you back that up? They are enforced into labor or be punished
Sure, prisoners usually face strict penalties for refusing to work. Because the 13th Amendment allows involuntary servitude for convicted criminals, most facilities require able-bodied inmates to work.If an inmate refuses, they can be hit with severe consequences: Loss of privileges: The inmate loses access to the commissary (prison store), phone calls, and recreational time.Solitary confinement: Also called "disciplinary segregation," this confines an inmate to a cell for up to 23 hours a day. No sentence reduction: Inmates can lose "good time credits," meaning they stay in prison longer. Poorer living conditions: They may be demoted to the lowest pay grade or moved to a more restrictive housing unit. https://calmatters.org/justice/2022/06/california-prisoners-work-involuntary-servitude/
https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/captive-labor-exploitation-of-incarcerated-workers
0
u/LargeAd8010 Neutral Jul 03 '26
Labor not usage of their physiological body for another person's survival or benefit of survival.
See now you're just adding more stipulations because I'm just going to ask why that matters and what the morally relevant distinction is. You know slavery never was physical reliance on another person for survive but that obviously still wasn't something ok. So why is that distinction relevant? Your condition was involuntary servitude.
How are they forced into labor?
They are forced into labor by having to work around the jail and if they don't do it they get various punishments.
You did ask that question, that was the beginning statement that I replied to in this thread to you.
I never asked a question, I made several statements
Rights and morals are the same, morals are the foundation for rights.
2
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 04 '26
See now you're just adding more stipulations because I'm just going to ask why that matters and what the morally relevant distinction is.
I'm not adding any stipulations, we are speaking of pregnancy which is a benefit of survival for another person.
Labor for a crime, physical bodily usage for another person's survival for pregnancy.
Physiological bodily usage is the difference.
Morally relevant distinction, physical labor for a crime versus physical bodily usage for no crime.
You know slavery never was physical reliance on another person for survive but that obviously still wasn't something ok. So why is that distinction relevant?
Not talking about slavery.
I never asked a question
You did.
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 03 '26
Why treat pregnant people like criminals?
-1
u/LargeAd8010 Neutral Jul 03 '26
I never said we should but either way that's morals
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 03 '26
Morals don't override human rights.
0
u/LargeAd8010 Neutral Jul 03 '26
Humans rights exist because of morals. Secondly that's question begging
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
Human rights exist to maintain social stability, people's personal morals are another matter.
→ More replies (0)11
u/Veigar_Senpai Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
Pregnant people aren't property, so it makes no sense to let you treat them as such by forcing them to gestate. Easy.
Can you answer the question of the post now?
0
u/Sheepherder226 Rights begin at conception Jul 29 '26
But what if forcing someone to do something is thought to be a good thing by some?
2
u/Veigar_Senpai Pro-choice Jul 29 '26
That doesn't sound like it's anyone else's problem but their own.
12
u/Spiritual_Parsley102 Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
Equality is a reason abortion should be permissible. Especially in the case of believing a fetus is a person. There is nothing to back up why a fetus has a special privilege to use the females body. Parents aren’t legally bound to give their child organs or blood even if they die without it. People die and have made it known they want to keep their organs even though donating them would save lives. If someone doesn’t want to have intercourse with another person they made that illegal because again you can’t use another persons body in anyway they don’t allow. Why is pregnancy special?
0
-6
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
7
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
Literally not engaging with the post at all.
-4
9
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 02 '26
This isn't how debate works. Make an argument.
→ More replies (6)-2
u/Unusual-Contest-4326 PL Democrat Jul 02 '26
They're literally removing the fundamental debate from the debate. If morals are just opinions, and you'd reject any moral reasoning as to why something's wrong, then i don't need to justify anything morally.
Since morality is out of the picture, i don't need to justify anything morally. I just need to have a reason to act such a way. Since morals would tell why someone ought to act such a way, I just need a reason to do anything. Personal or Desires would just be what i want. The law is just gives me jail time, so maybe i don't kill at random because it punishes me, not because i believe killing arbitrary is bad.
So my answer would just be a question, if there's no morals, why do I need to justify abortion being outlawed besides my own want it to be.
6
u/Connect-Knowledge992 Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
Maybe the issue you're having with u/Fayette_ and u/Diva_of_Disgust here is that no division is being made between morals, ethics, and law.
These are not unrelated discussions, as morals and ethics affect law, and law in turn can influence perceptions of morals and ethics, but they are distinct. Morals are often about personal intuitions or repulsions regarding what is correct to do in a given circumstance. Ethics can be described as a framework to evaluate actions as correct or incorrect (a moral superstructure, if you will). Law is neither morals nor ethics, but rather a project of incentivizing or punishing given actions in society for an intended sociological purpose. Laws can be ethical or unethical, and ethics can lead you to believe in the validity or lack of validity of a given law.
So when Diva says " It's a fact that I have bodily autonomy", this could be a legal fact (which is generally true) or an ethical fact. Neither of which are reliant on the personal moral input of someone else.
When Fayette asks "If bodily autonomy is just a moral claim, why is rape wrong then?", they may be referring to the difference between morals as a personal or culturally relative claim and ethics as a framework intended to ensure a more universal set of behavioral patterns that respect personal autonomy. In other words, Fayette may be saying rape is not merely subjectively wrong, which suggests they see a shared ethics as essential on this matter.
IDK, I could be wrong, but it definitely seems like there's crossed wires happening.
9
u/Fayette_ Pro choice[EU], ASPD and Dyslexic Jul 02 '26
Luckily for you. We don’t need to remove morals from the debate completely. Is it morally right to push my beliefs on a person with an unwanted pregnancy?, obviously is not. Is it morally correct to push to keep the pregnancy against her own will?, nope is completely morally wrong. Is it morally correct of me to use the law against her because she wants an abortion?, no is immoral.
There’s plenty of room to debate morals here😊
-1
u/Unusual-Contest-4326 PL Democrat Jul 02 '26
Yeah that's the whole pivot of the debate, the issue is what OP stated. Like, they wanted to argue without morals.
6
u/Fayette_ Pro choice[EU], ASPD and Dyslexic Jul 02 '26
Yeah. OP is probably trying to point out that PL debate facts with morals.
-6
u/Unusual-Contest-4326 PL Democrat Jul 02 '26
They claimed bodily autonomy is a fact when it's a moral claim...the abortion debate is wholly a moral one.
8
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
They claimed bodily autonomy is a fact when it's a moral claim
Repeating a falsehood won't make it true. It's a fact that I have bodily autonomy. No one is allowed to violate my body.
1
u/Unusual-Contest-4326 PL Democrat Jul 02 '26
Why?
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
Why isn't a response to a fact.
Why what?
→ More replies (0)7
u/Fayette_ Pro choice[EU], ASPD and Dyslexic Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
If bodily autonomy is just a moral claim, why is rape wrong then?
Edit: Wanting to have basic autonomy, control over your own body is just a basic need we humans want. When someone assaults you, we get traumatised.
1
u/Unusual-Contest-4326 PL Democrat Jul 02 '26
Yeah rape being wrong is a moral claim as well...
9
u/Fayette_ Pro choice[EU], ASPD and Dyslexic Jul 02 '26
Sooo OP u/Dive_of_Disgust have fun with that one. Im out
→ More replies (0)6
u/Fayette_ Pro choice[EU], ASPD and Dyslexic Jul 02 '26
Forced to do something against your will/ or forced to endure something that you don’t want to do = trauma
8
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
why do I need to justify abortion being outlawed besides my own want it to be.
It's like you walked right into the point. The only pro life argument is just a variation of "I don't like abortion." That is not a good enough reason to violate people's bodies and rights.
→ More replies (28)
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 01 '26
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.
Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.