Archive for March, 2010|Monthly archive page

Objective Truth

Have you ever seen the “Against abortion?  Then don’t have one.” bumper stickers?

I find those bumper stickers and similar statements a bit maddening.  They make it clear that that abortion supporter has not taken the time to understand the pro-life position.  In Scott Klusendorf’s words, “When pro-life advocates claim that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being, they are not saying they dislike abortion.  They are saying it’s objectively wrong, regardless of how one feels about it” (91).

Those who claim that one can be personally opposed to abortion but shouldn’t force that view on someone else, are acting as if the statement that abortion is wrong is a subjective truth.  A subjective truths are personal in nature.  I say, “It’s better to lose an hour of sleep and enjoy Daylight Savings Time than not have it.”  This truth applies to me, but it might not for you.  And that’s okay.  It’s a subjective truth.

On the other hand, are objective truths.  Objective truths are ones that correspond to reality.  I say, “Daylight Savings Time started this year in the USA on March 14, and in the Czech Republic on March 28.”  You might not have known this is the case, and you might not care, but it is still true.

The claim that abortion is morally wrong is not a statement of preference, it is an objective truth claim.  Let no one mistake that.

Abortion and the New Health Care Bill

a couple links:

Abortion Compromise Doesn’t Satisfy Critics
Statement by the National Right to Life Committee on Abortion “Deal” on Health Care Legislation

Why no one should dismiss the pro-life position as “just religious”

Some people may dismiss pro-life arguments on the ground that they are “religious.”  Scott Klusendorf gives seven reasons why that response is not acceptable:

1) “A non-believer can recognize that human embryos have value in virtue of the kind of thing they are rather than some function they perform” (57).

2) “Second, just because the pro-life view is consistent with a particular religious viewpoint does not mean it can only be defended with arguments exclusive to that viewpoint” (57).  Consider the toddler. . .

3) “Third, the claim that an embryo has value is no more religious than saying an infant or toddler does. . . Indeed, can a thoroughly materialistic (secular) worldview tell us why anything has value or a right to life?” (58).

4) “Fourth, even if we assume the pro-life view is essentially religious why should anyone suppose that religious truth claims don’t count as real knowledge?” (58).

5)  “Fifth, not all faith is bind.  Christianity, for example, teaches trust (knowledge) based on evidence” (59).

6) “Sixth, the “imposing religion” objection is not really an argument, but a ramrod used to silence opposition to abortion” (59).

7) “Finally, I could turn the tables on my secular critic and say, ‘Show me an argument for abortion rights that doesn’t assume some transcendent ground point.’  Here’s the problem for the strict secularist: where does the right to an abortion come from? . . . Most abortion-choice advocates think the right to abortion is fundamental. . .  Yet how can fundamental rights of any kind exist without a transcendent source of authority that grants them?” (60).