(This is a comment I recently made during an online discussion on the subject of abortion. It is edited for space).
The abortion debate is polarizing. I think by nature it must be. If one holds my position, it is black and white, and there is a place for condemnation of the act. If one holds the other position, the belief is that condemnation is inappropriate. The crux of the matter is whether a fetus is a child. If one grants that the fetus is human, when that life is taken it is murder. If it is not human, then it is simply a part of the woman, and there is nothing immoral about removing it.
Morality is objective, not subjective or relative. The true standard of what is moral has been established by God, and man has no right to alter it. When men do so (be they individual or government) they substitute their own will for God’s. As it relates to our topic, abortion is a subset of the general category of murder (as is genocide, patricide, matricide, infanticide, etc.) We rightly have laws against all of these. When men choose to disregard these laws, we as a society judge and punish them. While mitigating circumstances (upbringing, mental illness, economic circumstances) may lessen the punishment, it does not change the fact that a crime has been committed, and innocent parties have been harmed. When in 1973 the laws on abortion were changed, the Supreme Court wrongly allayed itself against the will of God. Abortion should still be illegal. The purpose of government is to protect the innocent. There is no more innocent an individual than an unborn child.
So, to me there is little nuance, and there is every reason to judge and condemn. I will never hesitate to speak out for the most innocent and pure individual in every abortion scenario — the threatened unborn.
