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

your morals = killing a living being is wrong. science = fetuses aren't living. all that proves is killing fetuses is NOT immoral

there ^^

How so??

If, theoretically, potential life is enough, then harming somebody's social or economic status is not justification for ending it especially when this isn't even the case

oh so potential life is not life?

No? I never claimed it to be, the only reason I participated in the "is it life" discussion was to humor the conversation

science doesn't impact your morals, it impacts the actions and decisions you believe to be moral or immoral

Or are they synonymous under your definition. As in you hold potential life equal to life itself

I think whether scientifically or not a fetus is alive is not important because, morally, I view that potential as the deciding factor.

But earlier you said, "current life has precedent over potential life" so it does justify it

I specified medically

so you think that potential of life will lead to life and when its life we cant kill it?

Then you're limiting it to specific factors which can harm a life. You're ignoring the social and economic damages of having a kid prior to being able to sustain it

Which then ruin both lives

Does this mean you value potential life less or equal to actual life? @Billcat

I'm saying the social and economic factors are not relevant because carrying a baby does not equal raising a child