Abortion for Christians Part 6: Where Do Human Rights Come From?

In the final part of Abortion for Christians, we will examine the final and most foundational objection and argument against pro-abortion. This article will cover the fact that, at the core, this is a moral argument: what is right and wrong for a person. Thus far we have seen that human life begins at conception, and to say otherwise is to simply not cohere to the definitions of human and life, and what they mean scientifically speaking; that since murder is the killing of innocent human life, abortion is the murder of human life; the weirdly socialist and communist eugenic origins of the leading figure in the abortion movement, Planned Parenthood and how it was originally purposed to keep black people from producing children and in poor conditions, which ultimately worked out as of today; and that the popular claims and arguments proposed by culture are all logically fallacious. Now we must see why abortionists must sit in God's lap while denying His existence, just to make their claim that "abortion is a woman's right."

This is a Moral Argument

The decision of whether abortion is objectively morally wrong or right is purely a moral decision. Applying certain axioms and presuppositions to actions and ideas to determine what is "right/good" or "wrong/evil". It is a moral judgment, and thus we can ask what moral standard we are using. The pro-abortion perspective completely relies on the assumption that all morality is relative and that the only real standard is the individual's preferences. This presupposition is what makes, in their own minds, their position impenetrable. This is also why insults and ad hominem attacks are common in these discussions, because if truth is subjective, then whoever has the power has the truth. This means that when you cannot logically defend your position, you attempt to embarrass your opponent to get the crowd's support, and/or to boost and reassure yourself. Intellectual honesty is a second objective; their main tactic is that of abuse of power. Ts, whenever anybody objects, they can easily pull out the trump card of "this is my truth," but is this actually true? Do we all have our own individual truth that is true regardless of other people's opinions? In other words, is it true for everybody? If truth is subjective in toto, then the abortion argument completely falls apart morally speaking.

The Logic Applied to Itself

The statement is a truth claim: all truth is relative, and no objective truth can be known. i want you to read that one more time and see if you can spot the problem. It's a self-refuting statement! The claim “truth is relative” claims to be itself the only objective truth that can be known, but there is no objective truth to be known. So under its own rules, the claim is false. The claim contradicts itself, so it is not logically coherent. We often decide what we believe based on what we like and what we have done. It is an attempt to cover up one's own sin, a reaction to the moral law God has placed in all our hearts.

What Standard Are We Using?

Another concern is which moral standard is being used to determine whether abortion is moral. What underpins the morality applied to these claims? Without an objective morality in the universe, no one has a solid reason to consider one standard "better" or "more moral" than another. But what is morality? It consists of the principles and axioms used to judge what is good or bad. When you assert that one standard is superior to another, you are applying an external measure and imposing it on another moral standard. How can this happen when morality is relative? Morality cannot originate from oneself, as another person's morality is "just as valid" or "just as invalid" as any other; the distinction shouldn't matter if there is no true morality (more on this shortly). If there is a moral law above the human mind, it suggests a law-giver for those laws, capable of imposing them on us.

Most often, people respond with a utilitarian approach to morality, suggesting that actions are moral if they maximize happiness and minimize pain overall. Any moral standard that rejects an external source is inherently a relativistic system of truth, which cannot yield a single "best" moral framework, as it is subjective and not objective. If morality is derived from unguided processes, there is no reason to trust this process as a reliable path to moral truth. Indeed, there is none! Moreover, many behaviors considered immoral stem from instinctual actions, but that does not make them moral. Therefore, an external moral standard must exist, and God is the only explanation capable of producing such an immaterial law. So, if you claim "Abortion is moral according to my standard," you have missed an opportunity for a solid defense, as you have contradicted the principles of your own worldview, which holds that no standard is superior to another.

Where Does Morality Come From?

To dig a little deeper into moral relativism, these claims are often made within a relativistic framework of morality. There is no objective morality to rule over an individual's own decided morality, and each person's life experience is the determining factor for what is right and wrong. What if someone's experience leads them to an uncontrollable sex drive? Or a desire for one type of person to die based on bad experiences with one specific person? People's life experiences can lead them to perform acts that are deemed wrong, so morality does not originate in experience since it can be applied to the outcome of those experiences to determine if they are right or wrong. So then, where does morality come from?

"Whatever a Person Feels Is their Right is Valid"

Some argue that a person's perception of a human right is equivalent to a moral right. However, consider the scenario where someone decides that individuals under six feet tall have no right to life because they feel intimidated and unsafe. This approach lacks a solid standard, as it can fluctuate daily or even hourly based on one's mood. It also does not establish a standard superior to anyone else's. Moral rights do not stem from individuals, as a standard is imposed on people's feelings, and whenever you declare something "wrong," you reference something beyond yourself for validation.

"Human Rights Come From Group Census"

Perhaps morality doesn't originate from individuals, but if the majority of people agree on a particular moral system, it might be considered correct and "better." As long as most people concur on a moral standard, that standard is deemed good and moral. However, how do we decide which group is right when two groups disagree? What if one group views children as suitable for marriage? Is that incorrect? Morality cannot stem from groups, as it can be used to assess whether those groups are wrong.

"Whatever Law the Government Passes Decides What is a Human Right"

Many people will jump to the law of the government as what decides what a person's rights are. Far too many people think like this without even noticing, "Well, it must be okay since it's legal". What if a government enacts laws that infringe upon the rights of its citizens? Say to force them to work on construction projects without pay. Morality does not come from human-decided law, since morality is often applied to various laws to determine when a government is being evil. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution grounds human rights in their creator, or God, and not in what the government may decide.

"If It Means Human Flourishing, It is the Person's Right"

The interpretation of flourishing is crucial. If flourishing is equated with survival, then numerous inhumane actions might be justified in the name of survival and reproduction. If it is understood as maximizing happiness for as many people as possible, then telling both significant and minor lies could be deemed acceptable. No single definition encompasses all aspects of life. For instance, if forcing someone to reproduce with you ensures survival, then one might argue that such an act is justified for survival. Similarly, consuming another person might be considered acceptable if it means ensuring one person's survival. This represents a slippery slope argument.

"So, Where Do Human Rights Come From?"

Since the rights of a person supersede human minds, their emotions, groups, laws, and biological urges, human rights cannot originate from any of these areas, even within a relativistic context. It appears that an external source is referenced to justify human rights. Universal human rights are intangible and external to us. What real-world entity can serve as a foundation for human rights? Thus, human rights are intangible constructs imposed on humans and must come from a Law-giver to impart life value upon us. Given that morality is an intangible concept, it is logical to suggest it originates from a transcendent mind rather than a material entity or mind.

The arrow represents the ontological hierarchy of moral authority. On the human level, all opinions for human rights lie on the same elevation of authority, and thus cannot produce a single best theory. If any one system claimed authority, they would have to appeal to something external to itself in order actually to be "better." Thus, once God is introduced, a standard outside of human opinion finally exists and can be appealed to in determining what is good or a human right.

Claiming there are objective moral rights implies they are binding regardless of human opinion (see diagram above). To assert that someone's rights are being violated is to refer to a standard beyond the human mind. Thus, even if slave owners believed their actions were justified, there exists an external standard that assesses the moral value of their actions and the rights of those they 'possess.' Therefore, if someone uses personally developed morality to judge the essence of morality, assuming such an essence exists, they lack the ontological authority to assert objectivity over it. There is no morality superior to God because morality emanates from His very nature.

Stealing From God to Make Your Point

So by what objective standard is abortion a human right? Under an atheistic or relativistic one, you must steal inherent human rights from God while denying His existence. If there is no objective morality, then there is nothing outside of a person's opinion by which to determine what is right or not. If there is no creator of life, then there are no human rights. Therefore, without a steadfast standard like God, you cannot justify any morality.

Now, this is not to say that people who deny God's existence cannot be moral, but if there is no God, then there is no moral or good to compare any opinion to, thus it is a matter of mere opinion and nothing more. Human rights only make sense if God exists. So by simply knowing that something is moral does not mean morality is possible or expected under an atheistic worldview. This is like saying that you can read and know what a book says without there being an author who wrote it. The focus is not on whether or not you know morality, but where it is. Just as there would be no book without the author, so too would there be no ultimate moral law to know if there was no ultimate Law-giver.

If the natural world is all that is, and you support naturalism, then there too ceases to be any possibility that an immaterial moral law could even exist; thus, it is a matter of personal opinion as well. The government's laws do not determine human rights either. Now, you do not have to appeal to God to make a law, and that is not what I am saying, but you do need to in order to ground it in anything other than human preference. This is exactly why the U.S. Constitution appeals to there Creator for the grounding of human rights. It says that even if this document is changed, human beings still have the right to life because they come from God and not laws decided by human interest. This means that no matter what your political views are, without God, there is no possibility of human rights. Without God, you cannot justify rights.

Just as the source of morality must be external and ontologically "higher" than human opinion, so too must moral rights for human beings. If God did not create man in His image with a right to life from the value God puts on him, then there ceases to be such a thing. Relativism fails to offer a mechanism for determining which moral system is superior to another: they are all equal because there are no objective human rights. Besides, every relativist will never be able to live out relativism fully, because the moment you even speak you appeal to things outside of your opinion to define words.

Is Abortion a Human Right?

After the discussion on human rights, we can now ask, Is abortion a human right? Do humans have the right to kill innocent and vulnerable lives? One of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not murder" (Exodus 20:13), and elsewhere murder is described as an immoral action (such as Deuteronomy 5:17). Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life. It is stripping someone of their right to life with no justification, and convenience is not a valid justification for killing someone. So, going by the rights that God has established in humans, the moral law He demands, the fact that human life begins with a unique genetic code created the moment a sperm cell fertilizes a female's egg, then from the moment of conception, human beings have a right to life, and to end that is murder. Any objection is a mere subjective opinion and/or purely emotional and not logically substantiated. Abortion is the murder of a human life. When we have two individuals involved, the baby is in no way the mother's body; it has its own body and organs created and developed according to the unique genetic code it has.

Humans do not have a right to murder one another just because it may be hard to care for them, or a lack of finances, as the standard for human life is grounded in the God who created it and has ontological sovereignty over it. In Philosophy, there are three primary branches: Metaphysics, which explores the nature of existence and knowledge, addressing questions like "do we have free will," and what is real; Epistemology, which focuses on rationality and theories of knowledge; and Ethics, which examines what is good and evil. Within Metaphysics, there is a sub-branch called Ontology, which examines the nature of being and its connections to other entities. Therefore, God, by ontological definition, holds sovereignty over Human life as its creator. Abortion is not a "human right."

Why Supporting Abortion is Spiritually Dangerous

You may well find every argument presented here convincing. You may also continue to support your pro-choice friends in their endeavors. But is this truly loving? Is being "tolerant" the right approach when nearly one million children's lives are at risk? In today's society, tolerance implies that all perspectives must be accepted as equally valid. However, some perspectives view others as less true and hold different beliefs, which are then labeled as intolerant. How can all perspectives be considered equal except those that don't regard others as equally true, if all perspectives are supposedly equally valid? How can you regard all views and opinions as equal yet reject one perspective? Wouldn't that make you intolerant? Indeed, you must violate the principles of "tolerance" to uphold them. If this modern interpretation lacks logical coherence, what does tolerance truly mean?

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139: 13-16)

Tolerance is an impartial, fair, and permissive attitude towards opinions, positions, preferences, people, and worldviews that differ from one's own. For tolerance to be expressed, there must be disagreement. How can you tolerate those with whom you agree? That would essentially ignore the concept of tolerance. A distinction between the two positions is also necessary. Tolerance involves acknowledging disagreement and differences without surrendering them to agreement. It is a permissive acceptance of difference, free from personal animosity, focusing only on the ideas. Disagreeing with someone's ideas doesn't mean they hate or look down on you. As Christians, we are encouraged to oppose wrong and evil ideas but to love the individual and help them recognize their misconceptions. Pointing out someone's errors isn't hatred, nor does it express it, because people's identities aren't defined by their opinions and feelings. People are more than their opinions. If you truly care about others, you would want the best for them, and the best is for them to understand reality.

"...clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit." (Job 10:11-12)

Why is accepting abortion as morally equivalent to its opposition considered spiritually risky? Supporting abortion poses spiritual dangers. Believing it is right encourages emotional reasoning, which undermines the necessity of maintaining emotional stability during a decision as significant as human life, making the emotional arguments purely instrumental in winning an argument and not seeking truth. This belief encourages the acceptance of a sin, and if one sin is allowed, we may start to view other sins similarly. You can see where that leads… It's not a favorable moral position with God. This perspective also paves the way for changes in lifestyle and behavior. It allows for more "liberal" and "fluid" practices, often leading to beliefs that are detached from external influences and/or God's moral law. Our lifestyle should be centered on God; however, the idea of "my body, my choice" encourages a self-centered way of living. When we shift our focus away from Christ and depend on our own resources, we start pursuing the satisfaction of random emotions and desires. Things that are not concrete and will fail.

"There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood..." (Proverbs 6:16-17, Italics mine)

Scripture is very clear that humans are, well, human from birth and are bestowed with dignity and value. Even our LORD, Jesus Christ, was not treated like a "parasite" in the womb along with John the Baptist.

"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy." (Luke 1:41-44)

If the Messiah was regarded as a person in the womb, then all humans should be as well. Other verses like Job 10:11-12 and Psalm 139: 13-16 speak about God knowing us while we were in the womb. In Jeremiah 1:5, God tells Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." If God knows us before we were born, and while we are in the womb, then in God's eyes, a fetus is surely a full human being with a right to life.

Conclusion

God desires a genuine love relationship with you. This means that He doesn't want you to try to justify your sin. He wants you to confess to it and repent from that way of life, shifting the focus from a self-centered life to a Christ-centered one. He wants you to surrender your will to His, because He knows all, and He guarantees the outcome with Him. He is the ultimate good, the standard itself, so trusting in Him does not make you a mindless robot of religion; it frees you from the bondage we all have to our own fallen nature. If God wanted you to seek yourself, and that He's not that important anyway, does He really have your best eternal interest in mind, when hell is the logical outcome of denying Him?

Since God's essence is inherently Good, all that is good stems from His nature. The initial step in following Jesus Christ involves paying attention to that small, righteous voice that tugs at you when you witness injustice or suffering. It's that feeling in your heart when you lie, the shame you experience when you sin, and the voice of God, urging, "Please stop this, you are hurting yourself; you have no idea what I have planned for you!" Trust in Jesus when He invites, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30). May your heart open to the truth of Christ, may He mend your flaws, and may you come to know Him through a genuine loving relationship. Amen.

"Your love, Lord, reaches to the heavens, your faithfulness to the skies. Your righteousness is like the highest mountains, your justice like the great deep. You, Lord, preserve both people and animals. How priceless is your unfailing love, O God! People take refuge in the shadow of your wings. They feast on the abundance of your house; you give them drink from your river of delights. For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light. Continue your love to those who know you, your righteousness to the upright in heart. May the foot of the proud not come against me, nor the hand of the wicked drive me away. See how the evildoers lie fallen, thrown down, not able to rise!" (Psalm 36: 7-12)