I can only allow others following this exchange to judge for themselves the extent to which Mo accurately reflects my point of view.
Here, in my view, you continue to equate reasons one might believe regarding Mary having or not having an abortion with the reasons one might believe regarding abortion being or not being moral.
If Mary did in fact have an abortion all the reasons in the world arguing she did not have one will not change this. Sure, you may well continue to believe she did not have one but there is ample empirical evidence “out in the world” to show that she did.
That in fact she did. If in fact she did.
But there are good reasons to argue that abortion is moral and good reasons to argue that abortion is immoral. Depending on your point of view.
And that has never changed.
All you can argue is that, maybe, perhaps, someday, science will be able to provide us with the only objective argument. But, as of now, science is not even able to argue definitively when the unborn become “human”.
Instead, like Harris, you create arguments the logic of which rests --sometimes more, sometimes less – on the assumptions you make regarding the meaning ascribed to the words used in the argument!
Again, the car metaphor I prefer is this one:
You are like the engineer who sets out to build the world’s fastest race car. You build the car and then, when folks stop by to see if in fact it is the world’s fastest race car, you bring them into the garage, gather them around the car and then proceed to read them the engineering manual.
Here we can just substitute “objective morality” for “world’s fastest race car”.
Same thing.