It is laughable that I of all people have a "subjective" view of abortion.
No, it's not laughable and it's not an insult. Subjective is any view that isn't based on an objective standard. Any faith position, including mine, is necessarily subjective. Thankfully for both of us there are objective arguments that can be made against abortion.
all societies on Earth have laws against murder.
They do. And a great many don't define abortion as murder, which goes to the underlying problem of right, being and when the two collide.
My view on abortion is that
if "it" is conceived of humans, "it" is human
Is an amputated finger "human" and if so does it have rights? If you understand the point of that you understand the problem in your premise.
if "it" is alive and human (science amazingly says YES), you commit murder if you kill "it"
Your finger is only alive until you cut it off from the source. Then it won't sustain itself. Just giving you an ongoing view of the counter.
Here's another way of contesting abortion. In our compact we've agreed and founded our compact on the notion that at some point certain we have rights that can't be abridged/abrogated/cut off from us without our violating the compact in a fairly serious fashion (committing murder, by way of example).
That's not contested by anyone. It's a fact of law.
Equally uncontested is the fact that I stand here today with those rights, the chief of which is to life itself, fully vested and protected by the compact. Unless I do something fairly horrible it can't be taken from me.
Looking back on my life, at what point can we objectively remove those vested rights? Because if you can't objectively assign that point, if you only have an arbitrary valuation to rest on (breath, brain waves, teeth, birth, which are each subjective valuations) then you can't abrogate my rights.
So we can't establish, objectively, a point where right can be removed. We are equally then incapable of asserting, objectively, demonstrably, when those rights attach.
But we know they do. They inarguably do. And we know that when they do we don't have the right to abridge them without that earlier mentioned failure (like murder) that self abrogates right.
The unborn cannot violate the compact and then cannot abrogate their own right to life, if they possess it.
Recalling that we can't establish an objective point where right vests or fails we can't objectively say whether or not the unborn possess those rights, only that at some point along our line of being those rights are found.
If we don't have the right to abrogate right and we cannot say with objective certainty where along that line right attaches, we must then protect right at every point along that chronological line or risk abrogating what we agree we have no right to abrogate absent an offense we must agree cannot be found in the unborn.
Protecting the unborn is then the only means to protect right we agree exists against an abrogation we agree we aren't entitled to absent circumstances that can't apply.
