Dedicated to giving reasons for what we believe, and why, in the interface between science and the Christian faith. Giving thoughts, criticisms, and informed satirical commentary on Contemporary Culture, Religion, Politics, and Traditional Values.
Without proper justification, it is clearly wrong to take the life of innocent human beings. Our moral intuitions should universally agree on that. Yes, this post specifically is going to address abortion, aka "women's reproductive rights". I doubt there are many who would be bold enough to argue that the baby in the womb is not innocent, so the real question we should ask ourselves is whether there are actually sufficient justifications for taking the life of the unborn?
One way to evaluate this is to use the SLED test.
Size - Does size make a difference in the value of a human being? Are short people of less value than tall ones (as the 70's Randy Newman song suggests)? Children are smaller than adults, but clearly we don't treat them as having less value. So how is size a justification for declaring the unborn to be less valuable?
Level of Development - Compare the following: children, teens, mature adults, and the elderly. Are any of these more valuable humans than others? On this basis, who has less justification to live? There is a continuous process of development of a fertilized egg up through birth and beyond. At exactly what point then does the developing human become endowed with value that it didn't have moments before?
Environment - Does a person's location determine their worth? Is a baby on one side of the birth canal worth less than one on the other? Is a human less valuable if they are trapped in a cave vs. on the beach? Are the homeless less valuable than those sitting in mansions? It seems obvious that the answer should be "no".
Degree of Dependency - Should a person's dependency matter? Is a person on life support, or needing a wheelchair, less of a person than someone who can do physical labor and provide for themselves? Does needing medication for mental health issues make someone less worthy of having a place in society, even to the extent of removing them from it? What if it costs too much to care for them? Is that really a good reason for "termination"?
But perhaps carrying a baby would be an inconvenience, limit career options, or cost too much to raise. What if the baby will be unwanted, abused, or a reminder of tragic circumstances? Or it infringes on my lifestyle or sexual freedom or ….? I'd suggest taking a step back and asking yourself if those reasons would ever justify harming or killing another person. Just asking for millions of innocents.
They miss the difference between objective morals and subjective ones. Abortion is objectively morally wrong, since it is wrong to murder innocent human beings.
However, it is subjective to claim we must support (fill in the blank) liberal social policy. Biblical Justice is objective; wealth redistribution (for example) to achieve "justice" is not. No amount of support for subjective morality outways objective moral truths on protecting innocent human life and sexuality.