[krapp]

>Why even make an argument if you don’t believe it is the “moral high ground”?

Everyone, at the very least, believes their arguments to be correct (unless they're doing some Devil's Advocate/false-flagging/Socratic thing,) but the problem with believing one view to be morally superior is the tendency to then believe other views are immoral, and therefore invalid, rather than see those views as being held from alternate moral perspectives.

Both sides of the abortion debate, for instance, believe with absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground.

[CalChris]

Everyone, at the very least, believes their arguments to be correct

No. Some people want their conclusion and really don't care about the argument and how it gets there. It sounds impolite but some people lie.

[justin66]

> Both sides of the abortion debate, for instance, believe with absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground.

I know people who preface an explanation of their support for pro-choice policy with something like "I would never have an abortion myself, but..." That's the opposite of "absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground." Most of the time it's the words of someone who recognizes a compromise needs to be made.

[krapp]

Then again, the reason "pro life" exists as a term is to imply that the other side is "anti life" or "pro death."

I may have engaged in hyperbole but this particular issue is still legendary for the intransigence on both sides.