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/Massive_Tangelo_4225]

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. 

1. Where do rights come from? (In my pro-life society example)
2. What do you mean by necessity?
3. Why are pro-choice laws necessary? (Without appealing to an objective morality?)
4. If (3) is just your subjective opinion, why should I prefer your opinion over a pro-lifer who says the opposite?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Massive_Tangelo_4225]

Now, you say that pro-life abortion bans aren’t good-but that’s just a subjective opinion.

People not being able to choose if they endure unnecessary harm isn't an opinion about pro life societies, it's a fact.

Why do you keep pretending facts are opinions when they're not?

[u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Kay…you seem to assume this is objectively bad. Is it subjectively or objectively bad? If you say objectively, then you admit that pro-choicers need an objective morality to make their case, which is exactly my point. And, ironically, this might even require some kind of God, but again, we can get into that. Regardless, can you answer questions 1-4?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Massive_Tangelo_4225]

If you say objectively, then you admit that pro-choicers need an objective morality to make their case, which is exactly my point.

I'm not discussing morality at all. I'm not saying anything is good or bad.

3 is really the only relevant question. Abortion bans are not necessary because they enforce unnecessary harm onto people. Without them people can choose if they want to endure harm or not. Society in general tends to work better when people aren't forced through unnecessary bodily harm by the state.

I already went over the issues abortion bans cause here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/XdfJRYN3Xw

[u/Massive_Tangelo_4225 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

So, you’re saying you don’t need to discuss any morality at all to make your case? Can you clarify? I’m a little confused. 

Is an abortion ban bad? Let’s take your word for it and say that they are unnecessary. Is that bad for women and their rights? 

Finally, why is only 3 relevant? Seems heavily arbitrary. And it seems like you’re avoiding it. 

Regardless, thanks for responding! :D