Either Side of Abortion, Makes One an Ethical Dogmatist

“There shall be for you no other gods before me.” 
“You shall not murder.”
Exodus 20:3, 13 (LEB)

If murder is condemned by God as an ethical no-no, then the murder of babies is ethically wrong.

This is simple and direct; only a broken and defective mind could miss it. But then the question is what is “murder.” (Not mere killing, but murder presupposes a lawgiver.) Yet, to intellectually define this, then one must presuppose the Bible’s doctrines of epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology, logic, soteriology and axiology. Or to use more common words a definition of murder presupposes, a First principle of knowledge, a definition of existence and causality, and definition of man (and purpose) a definition of logic and intelligibility, a definition salvation and a definition of ethics. Without all of these presuppositions a definition of murder is arbitrary, vain and unintelligent.
To be ethically dogmatic—whether for or against the murder of babies—presuppose one’s entire philosophy. And so, to be ethically dogmatic, requires one’s entire philosophy to be true.

To say you are either way about abortion, makes one an ethical dogmatist , for you are not merely saying this is a private ethic for me, but for all. You are adhering to this ethical foundation (aka a fundamentalist), and are being so extreme (aka a radical) that you will not move from it, and are demanding all to submit to this ethic like a good little dogmatist. And so, the real issue is if you can justify such a claim.
And so, the issue goes back to your starting point of knowledge. What starting point of knowledge produces the proposition, with the according categories of: “Killing babies is an ethical good.” This cannot be logically inferred from the Scripture. Can empiricism (aka, knowledge comes from the senses) produce any knowledge at all, yet alone an abstract, invisible, concept of ethics? How? Empiricism cannot even produce the terms of sky, car, hand, or any such common terms, without horrific abuses of category fallacies and skepticism. Yet, how then is it able to produce such abstract terms of logic and ethics? For sake of argument even if I grant observation gives a definition of an “is,” yet to go from this to an “ought,” is a category fallacy. It is like saying clouds are ground, therefore, all rocks are apples.

“The point of this example is that empirical premises contain nothing but statements of empirical facts. They give observational data. They state what is. Hence, nothing but observational data can be put into the conclusion. If the premises state only what is, the conclusion cannot state what ought to be. There is no way of deriving a normative principle form an empirical observation.” (Gordon Clark, lecture on Empiricism.)

Who then is the intellectual blind? A person who follows a starting point of knowledge that gives NO knowledge? Or the Christian who has a starting point of knowledge (which is logically non-contradictory and self-authenticating)[1] and gives all the answers to all the ultimate questions of life such as knowledge, logic, existence, casualty, anthropology, theology, and ethics?

[1] see Vincent Cheung. Ultimate Questions.