You've just proven my point by disagreeing. It was exactly my intention and that's why I brought a divisive subject like abortion to illustrate that how you see it (moral or immoral) depends on your worldview. I'm not even going to argue about whether a fetus is a human being and what the criteria is. Like who decided viability is the way to go? Viability is a stupid and arbitrary criteria because when born, babies still can't live on their own without adults taking care of them - how is this viable? Also, you can't freeze a fetus but an embryo. Most abortions are at the fetus stage.*

It is the same with abortion, some (not me as you might suspect) may see it as serving a good, but you do not, who is right?

**There are two logical options: **

1. there is universal objective morality, which has to have a standard and be justified within the worldview; if the worldview is materialism, then morality should be found somewhere within the material world (like the physical standard for kilogram residing in a Paris museum or maybe inside the brain which some atheists go for)

2. morals are relative to the subject/society in which case nothing is inherently good or bad and everything, including the worst crime possible you could imagine, is a matter of preference. Like in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer eating brain custard - a moral relativist is forced to say "it's not my thing and I don't prefer it, but you do you buddy" if he were consistent in his position (which they never are).

The crux of our argument is that my worldview can account for objective morality while yours can't. Unless you come up with a way to justify objective morality, you're stuck with moral relativism, in which case you can't call anything inherently good or bad.

*Looks like I did argue that too after all.

You've just proven my point by disagreeing. It was exactly my intention and that's why I brought a divisive subject like abortion to illustrate that how you see it (moral or immoral) depends on your worldview. I'm not even going to argue about whether a fetus is a human being and what the criteria is. Like who decided viability is the way to go? Viability is a stupid and arbitrary criteria because when born, babies still can't live on their own without adults taking care of them - how is this viable? You can't freeze a fetus but an embryo. Most abortions are at the fetus stage.*

It is the same with abortion, some (not me as you might suspect) may see it as serving a good, but you do not, who is right?

**There are two logical options: **

1. there is universal objective morality, which has to have a standard and be justified within the worldview; if the worldview is materialism, then morality should be found somewhere within the material world (like the physical standard for kilogram residing in a Paris museum or maybe inside the brain which some atheists go for)

2. morals are relative to the subject/society in which case nothing is inherently good or bad and everything, including the worst crime possible you could imagine, is a matter of preference. Like in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer eating brain custard - a moral relativist is forced to say "it's not my thing and I don't prefer it, but you do you buddy" if he were consistent in his position (which they never are).

The crux of our argument is that my worldview can account for objective morality while yours can't. Unless you come up with a way to justify objective morality, you're stuck with moral relativism, in which case you can't call anything inherently good or bad.

*Looks like I did argue that too after all.

You've just proven my point by disagreeing. It was exactly my intention and that's why I brought a divisive subject like abortion to illustrate that how you see it (moral or immoral) depends on your worldview. I'm not even going to argue about whether a fetus is a human being and what the criteria is. Like who decided viability is the way to go? Viability is a stupid and arbitrary criteria because when born, babies still can't live on their own without adults taking care of them - how is this viable? You can't freeze a fetus but an embryo. Most abortions are at the fetus stage.*

It is the same with abortion, some (not me as you might suspect) may see it as serving a good, but you do not, who is right?

**There are two logical options: **

1. there is universal objective morality, which has to have a standard and be justified within the worldview; if the worldview is materialism, then morality should be found somewhere within the material world (like the physical standard for kilogram residing in a Paris museum or maybe inside the brain which some atheists go for)

2. morals are relative to the subject/society in which case nothing is inherently good or bad and everything, including the worst crime possible you could imagine, is a matter of preference. Like in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer eating brain custard - a moral relativist is forced to say "it's not my thing and I don't prefer it, but you do you buddy" if he were consistent in his position (which they never are).

*Looks like I did argue that too after all.

You've just proven my point by disagreeing. It was exactly my intention and that's why I brought a divisive subject like abortion to illustrate that how you see it (moral or immoral) depends on your worldview. I'm not even going to argue about whether a fetus is a human being and what the criteria is. Like who decided viability is the way to go? Viability is a stupid and arbitrary criteria because when born, babies still can't live on their own without adults taking care of them - how is this viable?

It is the same with abortion, some (not me as you might suspect) may see it as serving a good, but you do not, who is right?

**There are two logical options: **

1. there is universal objective morality, which has to have a standard and be justified within the worldview; if the worldview is materialism, then morality should be found somewhere within the material world (like the physical standard for kilogram residing in a Paris museum or maybe inside the brain which some atheists go for)

2. morals are relative to the subject/society in which case nothing is inherently good or bad and everything, including the worst crime possible you could imagine, is a matter of preference. Like in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer eating brain custard - a moral relativist is forced to say "it's not my thing and I don't prefer it, but you do you buddy" if he were consistent in his position (which they never are).

You've just proven my point by disagreeing. It was exactly my intention and that's why I brought a divisive subject like abortion to illustrate that how you see it (moral or immoral) depends on your worldview.

It is the same with abortion, some (not me as you might suspect) may see it as serving a good, but you do not, who is right?

**There are two logical options: **

1. there is universal objective morality, which has to have a standard and be justified within the worldview; if the worldview is materialism, then morality should be found somewhere within the material world (like the physical standard for kilogram residing in a Paris museum or maybe inside the brain which some atheists go for)

2. morals are relative to the subject/society in which case nothing is inherently good or bad and everything, including the worst crime possible you could imagine, is a matter of preference. Like in the case of Jeffrey Dhamer eating brain custard - a moral relativist is forced to say "it's not my thing and I don't prefer it, but you do you buddy" if he were consistent in his position (which they never are).