Morality isn;t objective so it has to be scientific

Otherwise you can't prove anything

its so wrong to take away the rights of an actual living being because of "the potential of a life"

Morality is nothing but some bullshit taught to you as a child so you don't shove the girl you like

I truly believe that 50 years from now, we're going to look back on widespread abortion the same way we do on lobotomies and electroshock therapy. Science is not a tool for moral right or wrong, because science does not determine whether potential life is enough or not. Science tells you how and why things work, not if it's ok they do so

pro lifers = absolute moralists

pro choicers = relative moralists

Morality is just bullshit, right man. You have a good day.

It is

lol i disagree on that

how did this become a salt battle lol

science proves stuff

If you truly believe that then, wow. There is a point in a discussion where somebody is so radically different that finding common ground is impossible

we did find common ground

late term abortions are wrong

Believing that morals are pointless in a discussion regarding the morality of potential live is just a waste of time. We did, ashnaa, but not komrade

yeah

You make your morals

Of course make your own morals. Does that mean they don't matter?

If you don't have morals then what do you have to base decisions off of?

instinct

logic

yes, morality is subjective, so it can be complicated but it's not useless

I have basic morals, for this however I base my decision on the science we've found

there are other things that are factors of decision making, but morality is definitely a factor

You can't hide behind science as an excuse for not having morals lol, both are incredibly important to how we function

ok so your point is science > morals, which i agree with to a certain extent

The science shows it is not morally wrong as you're not KILLING anything as there is nothing ALIVE

Science does not drive an agenda, you cannot make an abstract decision because science told you so. Science tells you *how* and *why* , what you do with that information is where morals come in

Science is just the proof to your own moral code

If you dont agree on morals any science present to argue the other side is invalid

Science shows they're not living in the first trimester

And that's why I tend not to argue about what is or is not alive, because in my mind ***that does not matter, what matters is the clearly defined potential for life***

That is a moral view, that I hold, which has nothing to do with the science behind whether or not a fetus is alive

science doesn't change your morals

Exactly, yes.

Science only proves morals

yeah

the inconsistency or not

Then I showed that the potential life being preserved damage the already existing life present

No, that was the weakest point you made during the entire discussion