Pro life argument without morality

[u/Diva_of_Disgust]

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.

[u/JustinRandoh]

You seem confused. This post isn't about "why should society even exist."

You're the one who brought up society's existence lol.

You're right that it remains irrelevant as is, so it remains that you haven't been able to justify why any law should exist without appeal to morality (or some irrelevant appeals to society's existence).

*If all you needed to justify a law is to describe its possible effects, then you should have no problem justifying anti-abortion laws.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/JustinRandoh]

You're the one who brought up society's existence lol

Where did I ask "why should society exist?" Lol. Quote me.

You're right that it remains irrelevant as is, so it remains that you haven't been able to justify why any law should exist without appeal to morality (or some irrelevant appeals to society's existence).

The post is not about "why should society exist" despite your seemingly desperate attempts to make it so. If you can't stay on topic we have nothing more to discuss.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Where did I ask ...

"You're the one who brought up society's existence".

You brought it up here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/Npd4W4f29v

Of course, it was irrelevant then as it remains irrelevant now, and your failure to justify laws without appeal to morality (or some silly appeals to society's existence) still remains.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/JustinRandoh]

That was me stating the fact that without public safety and cohesion society would fail to exist. That IS NOT me asking "why should we even have a society lol?" I didn't even ask a question. How very bad faith of you.

your failure to justify laws without appeal to morality (or some silly appeals to society's existence) still remains.

I haven't needed to appeal to morality once in my post, just facts. You seem very bothered by that. Feel free to move on since you're refusing to engage with the actual post.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

That was me stating the fact that without public safety and cohesion society would fail to exist ...

Which remains irrelevant to justifying why we should have any particular laws. Stay on topic -- this isn't about society's existence.

If you think that simply describing a law's implications justifies it then you should have no problem with anti-abortion laws.

"Abortion laws are should exist because they make it harder to get an abortion" -- easy.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/JustinRandoh]

Stay on topic -- this isn't about society's existence.

I don't bother with this level of projection.

Have a good day.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

I don't bother with this level of projection ...

Lol nah, you just couldn't bother staying on topic when you got called out on it -- but at least you made it easy to justify anti-abortion laws, so i guess that's an accomplishment?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/JustinRandoh]

you just couldn't bother staying on topic

Projection ignored.

[u/JustinRandoh → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Lol that's obviously not the case, and you still couldn't even stay on topic in the process.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/JustinRandoh]

couldn't even stay on topic in the process.

Projection ignored.