so much that every society disagrees with it.

yes but now you have to *show* what a valid reason is and for pro-choice people they *have* valid reasons that you just dont *think are valid* so your entire argument is subjective

OK

now you see where pain goes into this

you said 'harm'

harm is a form of pain

therefore your argument is based on 'pain'

so now we argue

do fetus feel pain?

harm is 'damage'

so society does damage to the life of the women by refusing them the right to an abortion. socioeconomic damage and psychological damage if they are unprepared to have children, so that means society is doing something wrong this is the pro-choice argument

their argument is no less valid then your 'harm' argument

so now it's about playing to people's emotions

so you're saying that the women should be a slave to their children because of a mistake they made 🤔

you're calling it murder

but murder is subjectively defined

because they don't have a 'choice' in whether they want children or not anymore

it's now something involuntary

similar to a slave not having a choice to not serve their master.

my point being is that you don't
A) Have an objective definition for murder, you're highlighting that' 'killing without reason' is just what society believes is not a valid reason

B) your definition of harm is 'subjective' and you're never focusing on how it affects the woman

valid reason is a subjective phrasing

there's nothing that means what i believe to be a valid reason to kill

is what you believe is a valid reason to kill

for example i might be a pacifist and disagree with all WARs

but you might support wars to defend one's nation

so i believe war is murder

and you believe war isn't necessarily murder

those are subjective opinions

and there's no way to get 'objective' truth there.

society only takes (in a democracy) the average view of everyone put together

and determines that as the *right* answer

but there's nothing objective about the mean opinion of a nation

My problem is number 3

you keep repeating VALID REASON

what is the 'objective list' of valid reasons

there is none

point 6 doesn't actually change anything, it doesn't go against my point that we don't all believe that something is a 'valid threat' some people were pro Iraq war other people were anti-iraq war and not everyone believed the same 'justification' therefore the 'right' answer in the democracy was that the iraq war was justified (until it wasn't post 2003) but that's not an objective opinion that's the mean opinion.

because they're treating it as if pro-choice people are *objectively* wrong in relation to reality @Ben Garrison

so they need to back it with objective morality

instead of 'pro-choice people are wrong, but that's my opinion i cannot objectively prove this'

nothing you've said has objectively proven to me

ok i'm trying to highlight something

NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME REALITY AS YOU,
we all have 'constructed reality' and in your specific reality you believe this but in pro-choice 'constructed reality' you're wrong

they are

i'm only pointing out that there's nothing objective about what they've said

it's an opinion

did i argue against that?

if you follow my argument, my argument is your definition of murder is subjective and means you cannot objectively prove 'pro-choice' to be wrong

and that the average opinion of a society does not
A) Make it righteous
B) make it objective

it is

@Ben Garrison but he's acting in a way that implies his opinion is OBJECTIVELY RIGHT instead of keeping it as an opinion

that's overreaching

an opnion no matter how strong it may be

SEEE

I AM NOT WRONG

this is reaching so hard

an opinion no matter how goddamn strong it may be can never be fact

@Neon if murder is a legal term do you know what this means?

it means that it's decided by the justice system

does the justice system inquire these 'facts' about society?

can the justice system be dare i say wrong?

pro life

lol

so everyone has precisely the same brain and precisely the same morality system

again there's nothing objective about the justice system either.

your opinion is still not fact

guys do i have amnesia

didn't this dude literally say

"my opinion is fact."

wtf

@Ben Garrison did i say anything specifically wrong

must've deleted it or something lol

good point

but the way he comes across to me subjectively is one that his opinion is fact and that i am objectively wrong.

eventhough i've never said i support 'the pro choice' argument

all i've done is put facts forward

and question with a philosopher's mind the dogmatic nature of this debate.

but i still stand by the fact that there is no 'objective' morality system

that no one can 'objectively' determine what is murder

the second one is a loaded statement

well murder is an opinion

actually no

murder is killing without reason

so murder is bad

is probably true

because it's unjustified

the second statement was a loaded statement

that assumes abortion is *murder* which i haven't been convinced of yet

lets actually rewrite that *that abortion is without valid reason*

you are stating OBJECTIVELY: abortion is without valid reason

so you need objectively to show that

therefore abortion isn't murder

your sentence doesn't make logical sense

you've made an exception

the defintion of murder: to kill without valid reason
therefore what you've said is "abortion is to kill without valid reason"
then you've made an exception to that
there the orginal statement is logically inconsitent
it should instead be
"*some reasons* for abortion are unjustified and are akin to murder"

if you're gonna debate a position so nuanced as this you have to be specific.

any percentage of dying *dabs*

that means all abortions are allowed

'reasonable' is subjective