What would be the harm?

[bennyboy]

No, both statements are deplorably simple.  I believe that abortion is wrong because and if (fill in the blanks) - and if not, or because not,...than not.  -That's- moral realism.

Okay, fill in the blanks however you want. I'm eager to see what an objective moral truth looks like!

First, you have to establish that there IS a right answer, or even that there can be one.

No.....I don't .....actually...just like I don't have to establish that there is a correct answer to the question of what one plus one is.  That's assumed in theories wholly unrelated to moral theory and either stands or falls with them.  If there is any true thing, there could be a morally true thing.  End of.  Either you think there are true things or you don't.

I think if you are asserting an objective truth, you should be able to demonstrate that (1) it exists, and (2) it is in fact an objective truth. Otherwise, there's little point bothering to argue it.

In short...you're an asshole arguing like an asshole, to no effect.  Is confusion in that case really any wonder?

Is that objectively true, or just your opinion? nvm, good luck with this, but I've got real problems right now, and I would like to avoid this kind of interaction. exeunt.