Murdering Human Beings is Wrong, Unborn Babies are Human Beings. So Abortion is Wrong

When we debate abortion, we usually rely on agreed-upon ethical principles like the baseline truth that murdering a human being is wrong. We are operating in the realm of what’s called normative ethics (the fancy term for how things ought to be). The debate then naturally focuses on logic, biology, and the humanity of the unborn.

However, if your opponent believes morality itself is entirely relative or subjective, your biological and logical arguments will hit a brick wall. This shifts the conversation into metaethics (where morality even comes from, and whether right and wrong are real facts or just opinions). If they are unwilling to admit that murder is wrong, you can see why the debate surrounding abortion won’t be fruitful.

If someone is a moral relativist (believes that right and wrong change based on societies preferences) or a subjectivist (believes morality is just a personal feeling, like liking chocolate over vanilla), you will never convince them that abortion is wrong. Even if you logically prove the unborn child is a human being, they will simply invent a subjective reason why killing that child is acceptable to them. If morality itself is just a personal preference or a social construct, they can never be wrong, and anything can be justified.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Ordinarily, I do not recommend pro-lifers to take the bait and dive into the weeds of complicated ethical and philosophical jargon or fruitless sophistry. Typically, abortion advocates want to go down that path to distract from the barbaric reality of abortion and hide within a fog of confusing philosophical buzzwords.

However, recently I have had many young pro-life advocates ask me how they can respond to moral relativism, and several of my debate opponents have deployed moral relativism as an attempt to justify abortion. Unfortunately, as moral relativism continues to spread, it has become clear that pro-life advocates must be equipped with a basic ability to combat this terrible ethical framework.

A Simple Refutation: The Existence of Moral Absolutes

Draw their position out to its logical conclusion to show how absurd it is.

If someone tells you that there are no moral absolutes, but right and wrong are set entirely by the collective ask them this:

“If a society decided to genocide a minority group for their own joy and flourishing, is that moral?”

If they say yes, it would be moral; they have bitten a monstrous bullet. They are admitting that atrocities like genocide and chattel slavery are “good” if society says so.

If they say no, it would still be wrong; they have contradicted their own position. By calling the genocidal society “wrong,” they are appealing to an external standard which trumps societal standards.

If someone tells you that morality is entirely subjective and each person has “their truth” ask them this:

“If your truth says that genocide is wrong, but Hitler’s truth says that genocide is right, which one of you is correct? Or is no one correct and genocide is just a matter of personal preference, like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream?”

If they say Hitler was wrong, they are appealing to a moral standard beyond subjective personal preference. If they stick to their guns, they must concede that genocide is not actually wrong, it’s just a matter of personal preference like a favorite ice cream flavor.

The Pro-Life Connection

Again, I do not encourage pro-life advocates to make a habit of diving into the weeds, but it is important to know how to respond to moral relativism.

Simply defeat the absurd ethical framework and move on. Arguing with brick walls is neither fun nor productive. If someone agrees with the simple premise that murdering human beings is wrong, then return to the logical and biological arguments for life.

LifeNews Note: Victor Nieves is the president of Life Issues Institute.