Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

God is not necessary for morality. God may be necessary for such a thing as a morality that is 'objective' insofar that it is applied to everyone in the same way- but tgat would still not be objective morality, just subjective morality that nobody can oppose.You're not understanding what objective morality is.In practice, there is no real need for an 'objective' morality like that.It doesn't matter if there is a need for it. If I say that there is no need for 2+2 to equal 4, it doesn't negate it being true.Certain views of morality are simply unsuited for living in any kind of society, and our species is poorly suited for individual survival. It's not as if everybody would suddenly have an uncontrollable urge to kill everybody without a God telling him to do it; most people, even christians, feel free to ignore those things God tells them that don't suit them, offering up any number of reasons (and thats where they feel any kind of obligation to offer reasons). The reason we have a need for enforced laws is because of individual differences in morality; our laws (in theory, at least) represent a general consensus on what should and should not be allowed.This is irrelevant. As I said, who cares about whether or not x person thinks morality to be this or that? It doesn't mater what we think; what matters is what actually is.The argument was not a red herring; your assertion that there is any kind of objective, absolute moral law is based on premises that I am unwilling to accept as factual. We can't have a debate without agreeing on basic premises, now, can we?Yes, it was a red herring. Morality requires things as being determined as evil and good. But when we say that something is good or evil, we are making an objective ontological claim. We are saying that the thing is a certain way. Something being a certain way is irrelevant to what we think about it. The only way you can agree with subjective morality is to say that something is our preference. But that neglects moral judgements and claims, which are necessary for morality. This is what philosophers have noted: emotivism and ethical relativism are logically incoherent, since they are using a term that is analytical objective. It is logically contradictory, what you are saying. It is analytically, objectively, and logically impossible. This isn't even an argument; this is intro to philosophy subject matter, things that are almost taken for granted in philosophy, since they are obvious and objective.That being said, the only way for something to be objective is if it has a basis in objectivity. Abstract concepts, such as morality, have no basis in physicality, making them necessarily a part of an abstract absolute. What abstract thing is objective and absolute, something that can establish moral truths? The only answer is God. This is what many religious philosophers have noted also. Your position is logical impossible and fallacious.Acts isn't the only place that states it. Romans as well, and even more directly and specifically. I acknowledge that you obey God first, then the authorities. But this isn't you obeying God- this is you attempting to force everybody else to obey what you perceive to be one specific law of Gods. And I'm really not certain where abortion in particular is ruled on in the Bible, for that matter- you had said yes to that before.It is obeying God to fight against murder.Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, / and in sin did my mother conceive me." This is an establishment that I was at conception.