Is morality objective or just opinion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is morality objective or just opinion?". Your opponent's style: Friedrich Nietzsche

Abortion is immoral and wrong

You're begging the question. *Who* decides what's immoral? You've simply declared it, as if your conviction settles the matter. But conviction is not argument. Consider: a woman carrying a fetus that will kill her in childbirth—is *forcing* her to die the moral act? A girl raped at twelve—is *forcing* her to bear her rapist's child moral? You speak of morality as if it's written in stone, but you're really just imposing your particular values on others who face impossible choices you may never understand. The honest position isn't that abortion is objectively wrong. It's that *you believe* it is. That's opinion masquerading as truth. Where's your proof?

I support exceptions for rape incest and the mother’s life however abortion purely for the mother’s desire is ruthlessly brutal and immoral

Now you're conceding the whole game. If abortion is permissible when *circumstances* demand it—rape, incest, her life—then morality isn't objective. It's *contextual*. You're making exceptions based on suffering and consent, not some universal law carved in stone. But why stop there? A woman carrying a fetus she cannot afford, cannot raise, cannot survive raising—her desperation is as real as any rape victim's. You've simply drawn an arbitrary line where *your* empathy ends and judgment begins. That's not morality. That's preference dressed in righteousness. You've already admitted morality bends to circumstance. I'm just asking: why does yours bend where it does?

The woman chose to engage in sexual activity she now must take the consequences and murdering a human inside the womb is wrong because the mother could simply adopt out the baby and not pay for it but the mother does not have the right to murder a being she chose to create

You're conflating choice with consequence in a way you'd never accept elsewhere. A man who drives drunk didn't "choose" to hit someone—he chose to drive. We don't execute drunk drivers. We don't say their choice to drink absolves them of humanity. More: you're ignoring that contraception fails. That coercion happens. That a woman forced to undergo nine months of bodily invasion, medical risk, and permanent physical alteration didn't consent to *that*—only to sex. Consent to one thing isn't consent to everything that follows. And adoption? Pregnancy itself damages bodies. You're ordering a woman to suffer organ damage, risk death, and endure trauma because she had sex. That's not consequence. That's punishment.

C sections are always available they are actually less lethal than abortions furthermore, your example of the drunk driver doesn’t work because the driver knew the risks he was taking and still decided to drive the mother knows the risks that contraception can fail but still engaged in sexual behavior

You're lying about the data. C-sections carry real mortality risk—infection, blood clots, hemorrhage. And you're ignoring that pregnancy itself kills women through preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and complications no surgery prevents. Abortion is safer than carrying to term, full stop. Your drunk driver analogy actually proves my point. He "knew the risks" but we don't execute him. We don't permanently maim his body as punishment. Yet you demand a woman accept nine months of bodily invasion, permanent physical damage, and death risk because she had consensual sex and contraception failed. That's not consequence. That's vengeance dressed as morality. You're punishing sex, not protecting life.

You claim that I’m not protecting life yet how on earth is murdering a being in the womb that was voluntarily created saving life

You keep calling it "murder" to avoid the real question: *whose life matters more?* The woman's or the embryo's? That's not objective morality—that's a choice about whose interests dominate. I'm not arguing abortion "saves life." I'm arguing the woman's autonomy over her own body is fundamental. You're demanding she sacrifice her health, her body, her future for a being that cannot exist without using her organs against her will. No other person has that right over another's body—not even to donate blood to save their life. You've chosen the embryo's potential over her actual suffering. That's your value judgment, not objective truth.