Though objective realities exist, circumstances have a role in determining if there are exceptions to the rule. Does abortion carry similar caveats that are rooted in subjective notions?
When engaging in pro-life advocacy, there are times when you feel as though others’ perceive you to be working through a subjective reality - a passion driven by no rationality. I have grappled with this notion deeply. Are there instances when I fail to take into account reality and instead am propelled by my emotions to hold onto pro-life convictions? Has the advocacy taken over the cause?
Every single time these questions have popped up, I am led to one consistent answer.
For the purposes of this article, I begin with the presupposition that since God is objective, moral laws that come from God are also objective. I won’t dive into this further because it is not relevant for the purposes of this article to demonstrate whether moral laws are objective or subjective.
The bible clearly conveys that abortion is a sin (Read our post: “Abortion and the Gospel”). The shedding of innocent human blood is a desecration of the value placed by God on His image bearers. This is an objective reality that you and I cannot ever change. So what’s the contention then?
Though objective realities exist, circumstances have a role in determining if there are exceptions to the rule. For instance, we know that it is wrong to kill. Yet caveats exist for self-defence or the justice system playing out. Does abortion carry similar caveats that are rooted in subjective notions?
If we look at so-called arguments of “exceptions” in abortion, they largely fall under the umbrella of ‘inconvenience’ to the mother and ‘quality of life’ of the child. Both of these categories ‘assume’ that life is going to be difficult, setting oneself up for the worst outcome. Notice how it is never a given, whether it be in situations of rape or foetal abnormalities. And the truth is that it is never a given because the assumption is false. Secondly, a situation turning out ‘worse’ is not grounds for killing another innocent human life. It undermines the intervention of God in such circumstances (think of Beer Lahai Roi - Genesis 21:14-21) and the working out of His divine plan and purpose.
Thus, while it may appear that the pro-lifer is driven by subjective reality in these instances, the rationale is derived from biblical truth, rendering it still objective.
What about when the mother’s life is in threat, the threat of death?
In the very exceptional cases where this does occur, no advocate for life is going to deny intervention, offering protection to the mother. The suggestion would still be for the termination of the pregnancy (delivery) and not an abortion, to give the child a fighting chance at life. This, instance too, cannot be termed as pro-lifers adopting a subjective reality as the solution meets the objective of saving the mother’s life, along with the child’s, and meets the biblical standard of honouring life.
Yes, if the child is under the given age of viability then s/he will likely not survive. But it is a deeply unfortunate end, while in the pursuit of life. There is no irrational action hidden in either saving the mother or child.
Thus, regardless of how difficult and varied the situation may be, the idea that pro-lifers are subjective in their approach or are required to give into subjective reality is unfounded. If anything, being pro-life, and taking pro-life decisions, is firmly rooted in objectivity.
The intentional killing of innocent human life, will always remain wrong based on objective reality derived from the bible. This is the consistent answer I keep landing on.
Comments ()