One of the most common arguments used to defend abortion today does not begin with biology or even a direct moral claim about the act itself. Instead, it starts with something far more subtle. It begins with the assumption that no one can truly know what is right or wrong, and more importantly, that no one has the authority to say what is right or wrong for anyone else.
This way of thinking shows up in language that has become almost automatic in our culture. You will hear people say that some believe life begins at conception, while others believe it begins later. Some see abortion as morally wrong, while others frame it as healthcare or a deeply personal decision that each individual must be free to make. From there, the conclusion is presented as obvious: in a free country, no one should be allowed to impose their beliefs on someone else.
At first glance, this reasoning feels fair-minded. It presents itself as tolerant and principled. It avoids confrontation and allows everyone to hold their own position without conflict. But that surface-level appeal hides a deeper assumption that often goes unexamined. The argument only works if truth itself is treated as something flexible, something that can shift from person to person. In other words, it depends entirely on the idea that truth is not fixed, but relative.
The Foundation: What Relativism Actually Teaches
This line of reasoning is not new. Just as the act of child sacrifice is not new, neither is the ideology that has always been used to justify it. Today, that ideology is most commonly known as moral relativism.
At its core, relativism teaches that truth is not something we discover, but something we create. Each person is free to define their own version of reality, and what is considered right or wrong depends largely on individual perspective. What is true for one person may not be true for another, and no one is in a position to say otherwise.
There are areas of life where this kind of thinking is perfectly appropriate. Personal preferences, for example, are entirely subjective. One person may prefer vanilla ice cream while another prefers chocolate, and there is no objective standard that makes one choice superior to the other.
But moral questions do not function in the same way. When we move beyond preference and begin talking about right and wrong, something fundamentally changes. No one seriously argues that acts like torturing a child for fun are simply matters of personal opinion. Even those who claim that morality is subjective tend to speak and act as though certain things are objectively wrong.
That instinct reveals something important. Despite what people may say, there is a built-in recognition that some truths do not change based on individual belief. But as you have likely seen, those self-evident truths are often the first thing discarded when the conversation turns to abortion in modern American culture.
The Fatal Flaw: Relativism Contradicts Itself
The problem with relativism is not only where it leads, but whether it can stand at all.
When examined closely, relativism begins to contradict itself. The claim that there is no objective truth is presented as though it were objectively true. The assertion that all truth is relative is offered as a statement that applies universally. In each case, the argument depends on the very thing it is trying to deny.
This tension becomes clearer the more it is explored. If no one can claim to know what is right or wrong, then that statement itself cannot be claimed with certainty. If no one should impose their beliefs on others, then that belief is being imposed in the very act of stating it.
Relativism requires a foundation of truth in order to argue against the existence of truth. Without that foundation, the argument cannot even get off the ground. And for that reason, relativism ultimately collapses under its own claims.
Philosophers often describe this kind of argument as self-refuting, meaning that it defeats itself the moment it is expressed. More plainly, it is a worldview that cannot sustain its own logic. It does not need to be dismantled piece by piece. Once its central claim is examined, it begins to fall apart on its own.
Why This Matters
This is not just a philosophical problem. It has real implications for how we understand morality, law, and human life.
If there is no objective truth, then there is no consistent basis for determining right and wrong. Moral judgments become expressions of preference rather than statements about reality. Concepts like justice, accountability, and human dignity lose their grounding.
In that kind of framework, it becomes impossible to explain why any action should be considered truly wrong. It can only be described as something that a particular person or group happens to oppose.
This is precisely why relativism plays such a central role in the abortion debate. If abortion is understood for what it actually is—the taking of innocent human life—then it demands a moral response. But if moral truth is treated as subjective, that demand disappears.
Rather than defending the act itself, the argument shifts to something more foundational. It becomes an argument about whether objective moral truth exists at all. And for those who are committed to defending life, it is critical to recognize this move and expose it for what it is.
The Reality No One Can Escape
Despite its growing popularity, relativism is not something people consistently live by.
In everyday life, people rely on the assumption that truth is real and that it matters. Beliefs are constantly tested against reality, and actions are shaped by the recognition that being wrong has consequences.
A simple example makes this clear. No one steps into a busy street assuming that their personal belief will determine whether a car is coming. People look both ways because they understand that reality exists independently of what they may want to be true.
But this same principle applies to questions of life as well. No one would accept the argument that whether a newborn child deserves protection is simply a matter of personal opinion. No one would tolerate the claim that harming a child is acceptable as long as someone believes it is.
And yet, that is exactly the kind of reasoning that is applied to the preborn.
The same instincts that guide us in everyday life—the recognition that truth is real and that human life has objective value—are set aside when they become inconvenient.
Even those who argue that truth is relative continue to live as though it is not.
In Conclusion
Relativism presents itself as a way to promote freedom and avoid conflict, offering a vision of a world where individuals are free to define their own beliefs without interference. At a glance, that sounds appealing. But in practice, it creates confusion and contradiction, removing the very foundation needed to make meaningful moral judgments while still depending on that foundation to function.
If truth is not fixed, then right and wrong become matters of preference rather than reality. And once that shift is made, even the most serious moral questions begin to drift. This is why the issue of abortion cannot simply be reduced to differing opinions. The real question is not whether people disagree, but whether those beliefs align with what is actually true.
If human life has objective value, then it carries weight regardless of how it is perceived, and it must be protected—not just when it is convenient, but especially when it is not. And if relativism is the argument being used to deny that truth, then it must be confronted clearly, exposed for what it is, and rejected without compromise.
