Pro-Life Payments - Christian Merchant Services

Why Objective Truth Requires a Divine Foundation

The inconsistency between protecting endangered species while supporting abortion rights should surprise no one familiar with secular philosophy. When individuals reject God’s existence, they embrace—whether consciously or not—a worldview in which all “truth” becomes relative. Without an objective moral standard grounded in a transcendent authority, secular advocates possess no philosophical foundation for declaring any action universally right or wrong. They get to pick and choose which causes to support based on personal preference, cultural trends, or emotional appeal rather than consistent moral reasoning.

This is not a peripheral observation about pro-life rationalization without God—it strikes at the heart of secular ethics. Atheistic worldviews cannot logically ground objective moral obligations, including the very human rights appeals that many abortion rights advocates invoke. If agnostics and atheists want to be intellectually honest about supporting one cause or another, they must acknowledge this fundamental limitation: without God, there is no objective truth to anchor their moral claims, and their advocacy reduces to subjective opinion dressed in the language of rights and justice.

The protection of endangered species rests on biological facts—that embryonic eagles are eagles, that sea turtle eggs contain developing sea turtles. Yet the same biological facts about human development receive dramatically different treatment. This double standard flows naturally from a relativistic worldview that lacks any fixed reference point for moral judgment. As C.S. Lewis argued, the very existence of universal moral intuitions—the sense that certain actions are objectively wrong regardless of cultural opinion—points powerfully toward the existence of God as the source of that moral law.

Moral Relativism and Pro-Life Rationalization Without God

Moral relativism holds that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint—typically that of a culture or historical period—and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. This philosophical position denies the existence of universal moral values that bind all people regardless of time, place, or personal opinion. Instead, relativism asserts that moral claims can only be evaluated within specific cultural contexts, making cross-cultural moral judgments inappropriate or meaningless.

The appeal of moral relativism often stems from legitimate concerns about cultural humility and avoiding ethnocentrism. Proponents argue that recognizing the merely relative validity of one’s own moral norms encourages tolerance and discourages arrogant judgment of other cultures. Yet this apparent virtue conceals a devastating philosophical weakness: if all moralities are equally valid, then we lack any basis for condemning obviously horrific practices. Slavery becomes acceptable in slave societies; genocide becomes justified within genocidal cultures; and the protection or destruction of human life becomes merely a matter of cultural preference.

Without God as an objective moral standard, secular ethics inevitably drifts toward relativism. Philosopher Richard Taylor, himself an atheist, acknowledged this connection: “The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God.” If the universe is merely the product of blind material forces—if consciousness emerged accidentally from unconscious matter—then moral claims become nothing more than subjective preferences lacking any binding force.

This relativism manifests clearly in contemporary debates about abortion and animal rights. Environmental activists passionately defend endangered species based on their intrinsic value, yet many of these same advocates support unrestricted abortion. When challenged about this inconsistency, they cannot appeal to an objective moral standard that would resolve the contradiction—for no such standard exists within their worldview. Instead, they offer pragmatic justifications (ecosystem balance, species diversity) for animal protection while invoking autonomy and choice to justify abortion, never acknowledging that these appeals rest on arbitrary value assignments rather than objective moral truths.

The inconsistency in applying pro-life principles exposes the incoherence of secular moral philosophy. Charles Camosy notes that both pro-life and animal protection movements share “a common skepticism of appeals to autonomy, privacy, and choice” when such appeals justify violence against vulnerable populations. Yet many animal rights advocates maintain pro-choice positions, revealing that their commitments reflect personal preferences rather than consistent moral reasoning grounded in objective truth.

The Impossibility of Objective Morality in Pro-Life Rationalization Without God

The philosophical problem for atheistic morality runs deeper than mere inconsistency—it strikes at the logical foundation of moral claims themselves. The moral argument for God’s existence proceeds from a simple observation: we experience objective moral obligations that transcend personal preference and cultural convention. We recognize that certain actions—torturing children for entertainment, enslaving entire populations, committing genocide—are objectively wrong regardless of anyone’s opinion about them. Yet where do these obligations come from?

C.S. Lewis famously articulated this argument in Mere Christianity: “Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple.” Lewis recognized that his moral intuitions about justice couldn’t be dismissed as mere cultural conditioning or evolutionary adaptation. These intuitions pointed toward a transcendent moral law, which in turn implied a moral lawgiver.

The formal argument proceeds as follows:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

The first premise reflects a logical necessity: objective moral values require a foundation beyond human opinion. If the universe consists solely of matter and energy governed by physical laws, then moral claims reduce to descriptions of subjective preferences or evolutionary adaptations that promote survival. Nothing in a purely materialistic worldview grounds the “ought”—the claim that certain actions should or should not be done regardless of consequences or preferences.

Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse acknowledged this problem: “Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands and feet and teeth… Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.” Ruse recognizes that if atheism is true, moral claims cannot refer to objective facts about reality—they merely describe useful fictions that evolution programmed into us to facilitate cooperation.

Some atheists attempt to ground morality in human flourishing or wellbeing, arguing that we can objectively determine which actions promote or harm human welfare. Yet this approach merely pushes the problem back one step: why does human flourishing matter objectively? If humans are merely accidental arrangements of atoms without inherent purpose or value, why should their flourishing carry any moral weight? The secular humanist who asserts that human beings possess inherent worth and dignity has borrowed this concept from theistic worldviews without providing any naturalistic justification for it.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights exemplifies this borrowed capital. The document boldly proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” yet provides no foundation for this assertion. Where is this dignity located? What grounds these rights? If there is no Creator God, what are human beings other than accidental arrangements of atoms? The concept of human rights emerged from Christian claims that humans are made in God’s image, yet secular advocates appropriate the concept while denying its foundation.

The failure of secular ethics becomes apparent when examining specific moral intuitions. We instinctively recognize that torturing innocent children for pleasure is objectively wrong—not merely culturally disapproved or personally distasteful, but genuinely, objectively immoral. Yet if atheism is true, this intuition has no rational foundation. At best, it reflects evolutionary programming that discourages behaviors harmful to group survival. But evolutionary explanations describe why we have certain feelings; they cannot establish whether those feelings track objective moral truths.

Relativism’s Consequences for Pro-Life Rationalization Without God

The most serious objection to moral relativism is that it implies obviously immoral actions become acceptable within their cultural contexts. If moral truths are relative to cultural standpoints, then we cannot condemn slavery in slave societies, sexism in sexist cultures, or abortion in abortion-permissive societies. The relativist response—that they remain free to judge by their own standards while denying any transcultural court of appeal—offers no solution. It merely reduces all moral disagreements to preference conflicts lacking any objective resolution.

This consequence directly impacts the abortion debate. Secular advocates who support abortion rights while simultaneously condemning racism, sexism, or genocide face an insurmountable problem: by what objective standard do they make these moral judgments? They cannot appeal to universal human rights, for rights require foundations, and atheistic worldviews provide no basis for inherent human value. They cannot appeal to human flourishing, for why should human flourishing matter more than any other species’ flourishing in a godless universe?

The situation worsens when examining the specific arguments deployed in abortion debates. Abortion rights advocates frequently invoke bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and women’s rights as justifications for abortion access. Yet these appeals presuppose that individuals possess rights—moral claims that others are obligated to respect regardless of circumstances. In an atheistic universe, however, rights are merely conventions created by people in power, not inalienable entitlements grounded in human nature or divine creation.

Atheist philosopher Richard Rorty honestly acknowledged this problem: “The concept of human rights came from ‘religious claims that human beings are made in the image of God.'” Rorty admitted he borrows the concept of universal human rights from Christianity while simultaneously denying the metaphysical foundation that makes such rights coherent. This represents intellectual dishonesty—appropriating moral capital accumulated through centuries of theistic thought while denying the worldview that generated and sustained that capital.

The practical consequences extend beyond philosophical debates. When secular societies embrace moral relativism, they undermine the foundations necessary for moral progress and social criticism. How can we condemn historical injustices if morality is relative to cultural contexts? How can we advocate for social reform if current cultural norms define what is right? Relativism paralyzes moral reasoning, leaving individuals without resources to critique oppressive systems or advocate for vulnerable populations.

This paralysis manifests clearly in environmental and animal rights advocacy. Secular environmentalists passionately advocate for endangered species protection based on claims about intrinsic value, ecosystem importance, and biodiversity preservation. These arguments presuppose that certain outcomes—species survival, ecosystem health—matter objectively, not merely as human preferences. Yet the same advocates often support abortion rights based on autonomy and choice, never explaining why eagle embryos possess intrinsic value worth protecting through criminal penalties while human embryos do not.

The incoherence becomes glaring when animal rights advocates condemn factory farming as cruel and immoral while defending abortion as a woman’s right. Both positions involve killing sentient or potentially sentient beings, yet secular ethics provides no principled basis for treating them differently. Appeals to human autonomy merely assume that human autonomy matters more than animal welfare—an assumption that requires justification in a worldview that denies inherent human superiority.

Must See Also: Pro-Life Fintech: Pro-Life Payments

Christian Theism as the Foundation for Pro-Life Rationalization With God

In stark contrast to secular relativism, Christian theism provides a coherent foundation for objective morality. The Christian worldview grounds moral truth in God’s eternal, unchanging nature. God himself is the ultimate standard of goodness, justice, and love—not arbitrary or subjective, but flowing necessarily from his perfect character. Moral obligations reflect God’s commands, which in turn reflect his nature, making morality both objective (independent of human opinion) and absolute (binding on all persons in all circumstances).

Christian anthropology rests on the doctrine of imago Dei—the claim that humans are created in God’s image. This doctrine provides what secular philosophy cannot: an objective foundation for human dignity and worth. We possess inherent value not because of our capabilities, achievements, or social utility, but because God created us as his image-bearers. This value cannot be earned, forfeited, or diminished by human judgment—it is a gift from our Creator that accompanies human nature itself.

The imago Dei grounds equality in a way secular philosophies cannot. We are equal to each other precisely because none of us is the maker of another—we have all received our lives equally as gifts from the Creator. Rich and poor, capable and disabled, born and unborn—all possess equal dignity because all bear God’s image. This provides a non-arbitrary basis for opposing discrimination, exploitation, and violence against any human being, including the weakest and most vulnerable.

Human dignity in Christian thought encompasses both gift and promise. We possess dignity as a gift from our Creator, rooted in our nature as image-bearers. We also possess dignity as a promise—we are called toward fuller realization of that image through moral and spiritual development, ultimately consummated in the resurrection. This dual aspect of dignity explains why human worth doesn’t depend on current capacities or achievements while still recognizing genuine differences in human development and flourishing.

The Christian foundation for human dignity applies seamlessly to the abortion debate. A human embryo possesses full human dignity from conception because the embryo is a human being—a living member of the human species created in God’s image. Size, location, dependency, and developmental stage do not diminish this dignity. The embryo’s value doesn’t depend on parental desire, social utility, or neurological development; it flows from the embryo’s nature as an image-bearer of God.

This provides precisely the consistency lacking in secular ethics. If eagle eggs deserve protection because they contain embryonic eagles, then human embryos deserve protection because they contain embryonic humans created in God’s image. If we protect vulnerable animal species from exploitation and destruction, we must protect vulnerable human beings—particularly the unborn, who cannot defend themselves or advocate for their own interests.

Christian ethics also provides resources for navigating moral complexity that secular philosophies lack. When facing difficult questions about maternal health, fetal abnormalities, or pregnancies resulting from sexual assault, Christians don’t reduce these situations to binary choices between absolute rules and situational ethics. Instead, they recognize multiple goods that may conflict in tragic circumstances—the life of the mother, the life of the child, the integrity of the family—and seek wisdom in applying biblical principles to heartbreaking situations. The existence of hard cases doesn’t negate objective moral truths; it reveals the brokenness of a fallen world and our need for divine wisdom.

The Christian worldview also explains our moral experience better than secular alternatives. Why do we experience guilt when we violate our moral convictions? Why do we feel moral obligations that transcend self-interest? Why do we recognize objective moral truths even when acknowledging them costs us personally? Christian theism explains these experiences as reflecting genuine contact with a transcendent moral law grounded in God’s nature. Secular philosophies must dismiss these experiences as evolutionary accidents or cultural conditioning—unsatisfying explanations that fail to capture the phenomenology of moral experience.

Living Consistently: Pro-Life Rationalization With God in Practice

Intellectual consistency demands more than philosophical arguments—it requires aligning our actions with our professed beliefs. Christians who recognize that human dignity flows from God’s image have an obligation to live consistently with that conviction. This means not merely affirming pro-life principles in theory but actively supporting life-affirming causes and institutions with our time, resources, and business practices.

Pro-Life Payments exemplifies this principle of values alignment. Rather than treating payment processing as a values-neutral transaction, the company recognizes that every financial decision either supports or undermines the causes we profess to value. By dedicating 15% of gross revenue to pro-life organizations, Pro-Life Payments transforms routine business transactions into ongoing support for mothers and children facing crisis pregnancies. This represents not merely charitable giving—which depends on surplus resources and consistent remembering—but structural integration of values into business operations.

The contrast with secular payment processors reveals the practical consequences of worldview differences. Mainstream companies like PayPal, Stripe, and Square frequently support progressive causes including abortion access, LGBTQ advocacy, and organizations that oppose Christian values. PayPal waived $1 million in fees to support Black Lives Matter while deplatforming conservative Christian organizations. Stripe canceled the American Family Association and signed letters opposing pro-life legislation. These companies don’t merely process payments neutrally—they actively advance ideological agendas opposed to Christian truth.

Christians who use secular payment processors unknowingly subsidize opposition to their own values. Processing fees that should remain neutral instead fund abortion advocacy, oppose religious liberty, and support organizations hostile to biblical truth. The inconsistency parallels the philosophical contradictions in secular ethics: just as relativism cannot ground objective moral claims, Christians cannot claim to oppose abortion while enriching companies that fund it.

Values-aligned business practices matter because they reflect stewardship of God-given resources. Christians recognize that we own nothing ultimately—all wealth and resources belong to God, entrusted to us for faithful management. This stewardship extends beyond tithing and charitable giving to encompass every financial decision. When businesses and ministries route $50,000 annually through secular payment processors with no visibility into how profits get used, they abdicate stewardship responsibility. Values-aligned alternatives ensure that operational expenses support rather than undermine Kingdom work.

The Pro-Life Payments model demonstrates how values alignment creates compounding impact. When Christian businesses and ministries switch to values-aligned payment processing, they simultaneously stop funding the opposition and start funding life-affirming work. The network effects multiply as more organizations join—the 15% donation grows proportionally, creating expanding streams of support for crisis pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, and pro-life advocacy organizations. This represents practical application of the principle that truth requires God: Christians ground their business ethics in divine commands rather than cultural relativism.

Living consistently also means acknowledging the limits of secular ethics when engaging in public discourse. Christians can and should make scientific, philosophical, and legal arguments for pro-life positions that don’t explicitly invoke Scripture. Human embryology establishes that life begins at conception. Philosophical analysis exposes the arbitrary nature of arguments based on viability, sentience, or personhood. Legal reasoning demonstrates the inconsistency in protecting animal embryos while denying protection to human embryos.

Yet Christians should also be forthright that their deepest convictions rest on theological foundations. We oppose abortion not merely because science demonstrates that embryos are human organisms, but because we believe those organisms bear God’s image and possess inherent dignity that no human authority can override. We defend the vulnerable not merely because empathy or social contract theory suggests we should, but because God commands us to defend the fatherless and plead the cause of the widow—and the unborn qualify as the most vulnerable members of the human family.

Conclusion: Choosing Truth Over Relativism in Pro-Life Rationalization Without God

The protection of endangered species while defending abortion rights reflects not hypocrisy alone but the inevitable incoherence of pro-life rationalization without God. When individuals reject divine authority as the foundation for moral truth, they embrace relativism whether they acknowledge it or not. Without God, there is no objective standard by which to declare that protecting eagle eggs matters more or less than protecting human embryos. Without God, there is no non-arbitrary basis for human rights, dignity, or worth. Without God, moral claims reduce to subjective preferences, and advocacy becomes merely the assertion of personal taste.

Atheists and agnostics who wish to live with intellectual integrity must acknowledge this limitation. They may hold strong moral convictions—most do—but they cannot ground those convictions in objective truth. They may passionately advocate for human rights, but they have borrowed that concept from theistic worldviews without providing naturalistic justification for it. They may feel revulsion at genocide and slavery, but they cannot explain why those feelings track objective moral facts rather than mere evolutionary programming.

The moral argument for God’s existence remains one of the most powerful reasons for belief precisely because it starts with experiences everyone shares—the sense that some things are genuinely right or wrong, regardless of opinion. Atheism cannot account for this universal moral experience without reducing it to illusion. Christian theism explains it as reflecting genuine contact with transcendent truth grounded in God’s nature.

The implications for the abortion debate are profound. Those who support endangered species protection while defending abortion rights cannot offer principled reasons for the distinction unless they acknowledge that their position reflects arbitrary preference rather than objective moral reasoning. If eagle embryos deserve protection because they are eagles, human embryos deserve protection because they are humans—and in Christian perspective, humans possess infinitely greater value as God’s image-bearers.

Christians who recognize objective moral truth grounded in God have both privilege and responsibility. We possess a coherent worldview capable of grounding human dignity, rights, and moral obligations. But we also bear responsibility for living consistently with that worldview. We cannot claim that human life matters while remaining indifferent to abortion. We cannot affirm that the unborn bear God’s image while supporting companies that fund their destruction. We cannot proclaim objective truth while living as practical relativists.

The call is clear: choose truth over relativism, consistency over convenience. Secular advocates who acknowledge that pro-life rationalization without God reduces to subjective preference face a choice—continue asserting moral claims they cannot justify, or recognize that objective morality requires a divine foundation. Christians who profess belief in objective truth face a similar choice—live consistently with that belief by aligning every aspect of life with Kingdom values, or live as functional relativists who compartmentalize faith from practice.

The inconsistency in protecting endangered species while disregarding human embryos should surprise no one. Without God, there is no objective truth to anchor moral judgments, leaving individuals free to pick and choose based on cultural fashions, emotional appeal, or personal preference. With God, objective truth exists—rooted in his eternal nature, revealed through Scripture and natural law, accessible through reason and conscience. Those who acknowledge this truth bear responsibility to live accordingly, defending the most vulnerable among us because they bear the image of the God who is Truth itself.