When people try to say that laws are always about morality.

I left this somewhere else but felt like it was a valid argument. What makes people think a law always has to be morally justifiable? I'm sure some laws are but that's a few problems with the moral arguments generally. Abortion is a very complex issue with many underlying circumstances influencing individual decisions. It is not a popularity contest. People seek abortions for various reasons, and this is often driven by personal and socio-economic factors rather than a moral choice.

Laws do not need to be morally justifiable because morality is subjective and can vary widely between individuals and cultures. Morality changes with context. For instance, in a country without welfare, individuals might resort to extreme measures such as selling their bodies or joining a militia, to survive. These situations highlight the desperation and lack of choices that can shape decisions, including the decision to have an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, I am not equating these examples directly to abortion but rather illustrating that many of us cannot fully understand the personal circumstances others face. Most people do not "want" abortions, but they may find themselves in situations where it seems like the best or only option. For many, it might be the only option.

Moreover, in countries where there is free access to abortion, the rates of abortion are often lower. This suggests that providing access does not increase abortion rates but can contribute to better health and social outcomes. Therefore, framing abortion strictly as a moral issue is flawed. If the goal is to reduce abortions and support families, laws should reflect practical solutions rather than moral judgments.

You do not have to like the concept of abortion to recognize its necessity in certain situations. The focus should be on creating laws that support public health and individual circumstances, rather than imposing a singular moral viewpoint on a diverse population.

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

I think a lot of this comes down to definitions of morality. In my view, morality is objective. What is moral does not change. Our understanding of morality is what changes. As applied to law, that is essentially the same thing, I guess, because we can only legislate to our understanding.

My definition of morality is doing the greatest good with the least harm. That's almost always impossible to quantify with information at the time of action. The best we can do is strive towards it. For me, good and harm tends to align with both respecting the autonomy of other sentient beings while promoting their freedom of action. It is more complex than that overall, but that is the short version.

A fetus is not sentient. The mother carrying it is. Therefore, to me, the act of legally restricting abortions is immoral. The autonomy of a sentient being is being restricted in favor of a non-sentient being.

Given that definition of morality, I would prefer if laws were aspirational to morality with the understanding that we may have some things wrong and need to make updates.