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 should be legal, the fetus is not valid, it does not think, have organs, and does not start at conception, and women will always have the choice. And remember, it is not a human. Also, if you still don't agree, what if the mother has pregnancy issues, can't pay for it, or just can't sustainitz?

Your premise crumbles under scrutiny. Claiming a fetus isn't "valid" or "human" ignores the biological reality of continuous development from conception. Organs and brain activity begin remarkably early, not at some arbitrary later stage you deem convenient.[1][2][3] Your "choice" argument doesn't negate the objective existence of another developing life.

Okay, you didn't debunk me though. So I'm still correct.

You *are* incorrect. A fetus's heart begins beating at around 5-6 weeks, often detectable by ultrasound.[1][2][3][4] Brain activity, specifically neural development, starts even earlier, around week 5 after conception.[5][6][7][8][9] Your definition of "valid" and "human" seems arbitrarily narrow, ignoring crucial biological milestones. The existence of development, with forming organs and early brain activity, challenges your dismissal.

What if the mother has issues, with money, pregnancies or healthcare?

Those are deeply unfortunate circumstances for the mother, but they do not diminish the objective moral status of the developing human life. Poverty, maternal health issues, or difficulty raising a child do not ethically justify ending a life. We focus on supporting mothers, not terminating the child.[1][2][3]