I disagree. Jaywalking was outlawed because the auto industry successfully lobbied lawmakers using specifically moral (if flawed) arguments, like: "Cars are da

I disagree. Jaywalking was outlawed because the auto industry successfully lobbied lawmakers using specifically moral (if flawed) arguments, like: "Cars are dangerous but helpful to people, people's lives are valuable, let's protect human life by outlawing randomly walking across the street where cars are." The moral assumption that argument is asking lawmakers to accept is that human life is valuable. The argument is flawed and mostly wrong otherwise, but it's the moral component that makes it compelling. It's the same with pro-choice laws. They're compelling to many people because of the moral assumptions we're asked to accept -- specifically the bodily autonomy of the woman, among other things. Why should pro-life arguments be the only ones not allowed to be based on morality?