List of reasons to believe God exists?

[SteveII]

Abortion advocates have elevated a right of the mother in favor of the right of the child. Subjective

No, they haven't..this is one of many reasons that your opinion is wrong.  Nor is anything above an issue of subjectivity in the first place.  So that's twice you were factually wrong and there's nothing subjective about it.

What?!?! The very crux of the debate is the "rights" of the mother. The baby has no rights OR has rights at a certain number of weeks--depending on jurisdiction = subjective. 

Additionally, the babies rights can then be set aside if other subjective conditions are met--which vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (like the mental health of the mother).  

A child 10 minutes before birth has little or no rights and can be terminated. 20 minutes later-- murder. Subjective

Where, Hell-holistan?  Now you're not only factually wrong you're being intentionally duplicitous..and -still- haven;t managed to point out any subjectivity.  You just keep typing the word.

What?!?!? Setting aside that Planned Parenthood considers any ban to be unconstitutional (read "unborn baby has no rights"), third-trimester abortions happen all the time in many jurisdictions. The baby born at 3pm could have been killed right up to delivery. At 3:10, sitting in the incubator, it would be murder to kill it. Why? What magically happened in those minutes to endow rights to the baby that is not subjective? Location? 

If a pregnant mother is murdered, someone can be charged with a double-murder. If the mother kills the baby, it's okay. Subjective.

You mean..there's no difference between murder and killing?  You seem to think otherwise elsewhere..and yet again, you've failed to establish any subjectivity.  

You did, however, in each and every case, use the term "subjective" as a placeholder for what you found to be "wrong".  This is -why- you cannot competently comment on objective morality (or in this case objective statements regarding legality).  You don't know what it is.  You take and communicate whatever it is you think a fairy said to be the definition of objective and right...and whatever you don't agree with to be the definition of subjective and wrong.  Your failure, and frankly the failure of your religion these past centuries..in this regard..holds a mirror up to and explains the failure of those who respond as reactionaries -to- that failure by denying the existence of any moral facts.  Your mistake precipitates and fuels their mistake.

A productive and informative conversation about objective morality and the relationship between non optimal decisions -could- be had using the legality of abortion as a foil for the process of moral decision-making..but not with you or anyone who has codifed their moral response by the assumption of your commonly shared misapprehensions.

Ah, but there is no difference from the baby's perspective--just a different person's intent. Subjective

Differing legality in different jurisdictions is not the same as morally right or wrong, but it surely is a perfect example that the morality of abortion is highly subjective. 

Therefore, your harm avoidance framework as a basis of morality is NOT objective. Christian morality is much more objective because we can start with the premise the all human life has intrinsic value because we were made in the image of God with purpose. Talking about past failures is a epistemic problem not whether there is an objective standard or not.