When having a discussion about abortion with a pro-choice individual, it is sometimes necessary to address their underlying views of ethics and morality. After all, it is those underlying views that often serve as the foundation for their beliefs on abortion. A mainstream belief that you will likely come into contact with at some point is moral relativism. Being able to understand the views of the moral relativist, seeing the logical flaws in their belief, and knowing how to respond are all invaluable tools in your toolbox as a pro-life advocate. It is an essential first step to having an effective dialogue about human life.

     Moral relativism is the belief that there is no objective, external standard for right and wrong that is valid for everyone. “If abortion violates your moral standard, abortion is wrong is relative to you,” the moral relativist will argue, “You can’t claim that others should submit to that standard because it only applies to you.” No one standard is true or false, right or wrong, good or bad. As you would expect, the acceptance of such a belief readily lends itself to the degradation of moral fabric.

     Josh Brahm, President of Equal Rights Institute, recounts a discussion revolving around this concept of moral relativism that he had with two college students, Justin and Teesha. The result of the conversation is a stark example of the philosophy’s inherent problems.

   Justin: There is no such thing as objective truth.

Josh: Is that a true statement?

   Justin: Well, it’s true for me.

Josh:  I understand that, but is it true for me too, or is it just true for you?

   Justin: I don’t know, but it’s definitely true for me. There are some things I believe are wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for everybody.

Josh:  Okay, well do you think we could agree that there are some things that are objectively wrong? Like rape, for example. Wouldn’t it be wrong for someone to rape Teesha?

   Justin: Well, it would be wrong for me.

Josh:  I understand that, but when I say ‘rape is wrong,’ I mean that there is something inherently evil about the act of rape itself. It seems that when you say ‘rape is wrong,’ you’re simply stating a personal preference.

   Justin: Yes, it’s wrong for me, but who am I to judge someone else?

     Josh went on to push even further by bringing up sex trafficking of minors, which elicited similar responses from Justin. Teesha, however, quite reasonably found all of these examples disturbing, and ultimately declared, “Well I think that would be wrong!”

     What Josh Brahm has captured here is precisely the issue many of us have or will encounter in a conversation with a pro-choice individual. I personally would not have an abortion, but who am I to tell another woman what to do with her body? Instinctually, many of us would respond with something along the lines of, “Because taking human life is wrong!” But while this is true, to the moral relativist that response holds no weight. It may be wrong for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for her, is a typical response you may hear. This is why you will have to go a few steps back and start by discussing their underlying belief that wrong and right are subjective before you even attempt to explain why abortion is wrong.

     Sometimes, people don’t articulate their position clearly. Even if they do, some words and phrases could have multiple potential meanings (this is called Equivocation).

     To avoid miscommunication, clarify by asking initial questions like, “Is there objective truth?” or saying, “That’s an interesting perspective. I want to make sure I’m understanding your view. Are you saying that you don’t believe in objective truth, or am I misunderstanding?”

     Oftentimes, they don’t believe in objective truth. They may respond by saying that they personally have a moral standard, but that others should not be expected to submit to that standard.

      Once you’ve established that they believe there is no objective moral code, you can explore the impacts of this belief by asking the questions that, on the one hand, will certainly make them uncomfortable with answering, but, on the other hand, will reveal to them the impact and instinctually repugnant nature of their belief in subjective right and wrong.

     Josh Brahm executed this strategy flawlessly in his conversation with Justin and Teesha.  In his article, he explains that he purposefully “chose to describe the most despicable acts [he] could think of.”* As sampled in the snippet above, he asked the most simple and obvious questions that stopped the moral relativist in his tracks: Is child prosititution evil? Is rape evil?

     While asking such questions may make you both uncomfortable, that is partially the purpose. If they truly believe that morality is relative and there is no true wrong or right, that this would necessitate claiming that child prostitution is not always evil, at least for some people. That’s horrible. Most of the time, there will be some level of obvious discomfort they will feel if they respond, “If they personally believe rape is morally right, I cannot judge them.”

     This will get them thinking about their assumption in moral subjectivity, whether or not they admit it. Ideally, they will abandon relativism, or at least consider abandoning it. Even if they don’t, they will no longer be comfortable with it, which can lead to them abandoning it later down the road.

     At this point, it is time to move beyond opinion and move into fact. If they claim that there is no such thing as objective truth, ask them more about this.

     First, you can bring up is the law of Non-Contradiction, as Josh Brahm does in his conversation with the student. The very statement that there is no objective truth is, in fact, an absolute statement of truth.

     Second, you can bring up objective facts. As Josh Brahm put it, “Everybody used to think the earth was a flat disc on the back of a giant sea turtle. Were they right?” Of course not! Regardless of if they thought it was true, it simply was not. By asking such a question, you further invite them to consider the illogical nature of subjective truth.

      Where the conversation goes after this discussion largely depends on their new stance. If they persist in the view that there truly is no objective truth and no objective moral right and wrong, an effective dialogue may be hard to achieve. If they concede that there is objective truth and that there are, to some extent, actions that are inherently good or evil, you now have the opportunity to discuss the morality of abortion itself.

     Moral relativism is a destructive and illogical worldview that is serving as one of the strongest detriments to our culture’s moral fabric. Pro-life individuals should be able to respond effectively to this belief and do so with tact. It is crucial that you get involved in the discussion and think clearly about the underlying problems.

Save the Storks: Abortion and the Problem with Moral Relativism, by Nathan Apodaca