This sort of logic is a slippery slope and will lead to further depravity, who gets to make the definition, by what standards do they make this definition?
I shall take my standards from God's objectivity and not your subjective immorality.
How do you know that I have a subjective immorality and how do you know that God is objective in the first place? Just because I refuse to follow God's advice and rules doesn't make me immoral. God as the Bible describes is the creator of all things etc etc. So his nature is either both subjective and objective or neither. I have already discussed this matter with a few of the people here and you can't actually prove that God is subjective/objective or moral/immoral. You just assume that God is objective and moral. If you assume that please let me assume that God can also be subjective and immoral, although my personal opinion is that God is both moral/immoral and both objective/subjective or neither.
Again, since God is the creator of all things he could choose to be objective/subjective or both or neither. But God never said anything about his own choices in the bible, he just gave advice and rules to follow. So you can't possibly know about God's choice.
This is more like a philosophical discussion which is nice and challenging, but please don't call me immoral again. You don't know me. The fact that I refuse to follow the same divine rules as you doesn't make you a better person or a moral person. If you have read the discussion you would probably know that I'm not pro or anti abortion. I'm in the middle because of the implications of such a decision. The fact that I talk here on this forum about other options and I give you examples of what happens in real life it's something else. Here we are discussing and debating. That's all.