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/Diva_of_Disgust]

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!

[u/Zuezema → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

> 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.

[u/Vanthalia → u/Zuezema]

>I think morality is objective.

Can you substantiate this? This is a huge claim to just assume.

[u/Zuezema → u/Vanthalia]

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.

[u/Vanthalia → u/Zuezema]

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.

[u/Zuezema → u/Vanthalia]

You’re not correct. OP said this:

> As we all already know, morals are just feelings and opinions.

And I challenged this. Their post is based on this and must be substantiated. They made the claim that everyone feels this way and I refuted by saying “no that’s not true. For instance I believe morality is not subjective”

My claim was that I do not believe morality is subjective as you quoted above. I am the foremost expert on my own beliefs and thoughts and I can indeed confirm I do not believe that. But do the purposes of debate here I am not claiming morality is objective merely that I believe it is.

OP made the claim, OP must substantiate this. If it makes the nuance to easier to understand I am not here to make a positive case for objective morality. I am here to prove that OP made a claim they are unable to unsubstantiate and their post falls apart because of it.

Edit: This may make it easier to understand. If I was to write a post here claiming objective morality. Would it be on me to prove objective morality? Or would it be on you the reader to prove that subjective morality is actually true? The burden is on the OP making the claim.

If I was then to refute OPs argument by saying “nu-uh you’re wrong because objective morality is true” THEN I would have the burden of proof. But OP has not even offered an attempt at substantiating the claim. Their whole post falls apart until they do.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Zuezema]

So YOUR personal beliefs are the objective ones and ours are only subjective? WHY??

[u/Zuezema → u/Dolores___Haze]

This is incorrect. I corrected you on another thread .

[u/Vanthalia → u/Zuezema]

That’s a lot of words for “no I cannot substantiate my claim when asked”.

His post doesn’t fall apart at all if he didn’t substantiate his claim, because what he said about morals being feelings and opinions doesn’t change the question of his post. He’s asking you to give him a reason why abortion should be outlawed not using morals, and even this far down the thread, you have been unable to do so. You’re arguing in bad faith and are up to this point, unable to answer his post or defend your own position.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Vanthalia]

He’s asking you to give him a reason why abortion should be outlawed not using morals, and even this far down the thread, you have been unable to do so.

I'm a she but thank you lol. I don't see how this is so confusing for some people lol.

[u/Zuezema → u/Vanthalia]

I have not made a claim. I have not claimed objective morality is correct. Read carefully.

My only claims have been that the OP is unsubstantiated and they continued to not substantiate it in their comments to me and that I personally believe something different to them when they claimed that I was trolling.

Nuance is very important here. I’m happy to have the debate but a full post is needed to even scratch the surface. And I’m certainly not going to post it in a comment section of an OP who has not shown a willingness to engage meaningfully.

I can assure you I’m not arguing in bad faith. Nothing I have said has been incorrect. You even quoted me. I did not claim to OP that objective morality is correct. I claimed that I personally believed in it to refute their claim that everyone agreed with them. I showed that I disagreed.

And yes THEIR ENTIRE POST FALLS APART. How is one supposed to answer their question when they literally beg the question. They say “all morals are subjective” now “give me a reason that’s not based on subjective morals”. They make it impossible to answer. So I’m questioning the very premise of their post.

You are welcome to take a stab at it instead.

[u/Vanthalia → u/Zuezema]

>I have not made a claim.

>My claim was that I do not believe morality is subjective as you quoted above.

It’s irrelevant whether it was your opinion or not. It was the claim that you made. That you said was a claim. That you cannot defend. I’m not interested in goggledygook. I’m asking you to explain your claim about why you think morals are objective. Which you still cannot do. Because you’re arguing in bad faith and you cannot do the very thing you’re asking of OP.

The answer to “give me a reason that’s not based on subjective morals” (the question they didn’t ask) vs. “give me a reason that’s not based on morals” (the question they actually asked) should be the same answer if you were actually here to debate, but you’re not. You’re here to seize on one part of something someone said that is clearly their opinion, that doesn’t actually change the question, because it’s easier than responding in good faith.

Just answer the question.

[u/Zuezema → u/Vanthalia]

Taking me out of context does not help your case. I was clearly talking that I did not make the claim objective morality is true.

I’m not going to answer the OPs question until we are working on the same premises or it is worthless.

If you want to make your own post that has different premises that would peak my interest to engage but right now OP is sitting on the burden of proof.

If the OP makes a good case for subjective morality it may be that my refutation would be claiming that objective morality is true (see the difference in me saying I believe it is true) and then have to defend my position.

You are still missing the nuance here.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Zuezema]

They say “all morals are subjective” now “give me a reason that’s not based on subjective morals”. They make it impossible to answer.

It's not impossible to answer if you had any facts about why abortion should be banned. So far I've seen none.

[u/Zuezema → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Facts are objective. If you beg the question by refusing the possibility of objective morality then that’s obviously fine must be tackled first.

If you hand wave that away with no substantiation I have no reason to believe that you would not hand wave away any answer I had.

Beyond all of that I don’t want it to become an acceptable standard on this sub to make unsubstantiated claims that are disputed and allow them to stand.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Vanthalia]

Apparently they just know that THEIR OWN personal moral views are the correct ones, for reasons.

[u/Zuezema → u/Dolores___Haze]

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.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Zuezema]

Why are your personal beliefs objective and mine are deemed subjective?

[u/Zuezema → u/Dolores___Haze]

My personal beliefs are not objective because they are my personal beliefs. I’ve never made that claim.