Ever heard this from pro-choice advocates?

It seems like abortion advocates assume that right and wrong is different for different people. This assumption manifests itself in statements like, “You have your truth; I have my truth. Therefore, we should be tolerant of all views. Maybe abortion is wrong for you, but it might be right for others.” This flaw turns the pro-life moral claim about abortion (“Abortion is wrong”) into a preference claim (“I don’t like abortion”). Of course, this misses our point entirely. Twisting objective claims into subjective claims is known as “moral relativism”—the view that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, only personal preferences, like tastes in ice cream.

This is one of the most common ways that abortion advocates relativize the pro-life position. They treat our view as a mere preference that we’re forcing on others. However, it’s not that we don’t like abortion and would prefer that people not have one. We think abortion is wrong, whether we like it or not. This argument confuses our moral claim with a preference claim. (Excerpted from “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion”)

Want to learn how to defend your pro-life views and answer pro-choice rhetoric? Join me at LifeMinded and learn from the best materials available: “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion” by Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf

“I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t want to impose my view on others”

Just the facts please

This relativistic response is known as the “modified pro-choice” position. Though this view may seem difficult to oppose, it’s actually very easy to help the person who holds it to see the problem, if you ask the right question. If you aks them, “Why do you personally oppose abortion?” Invariably they will reply, “I oppose it because I think abortion kills a human baby or an innocent life, but that’s my own personal view.” At that point, repeat their words back to them, but take the spin off it: you might say something like “Let me see if I understand you. You actually believe abortion kills a human child, but you think women should be allowed to kill their children if they want to.” If they object to your wording, ask them what part of their view you misunderstood. The fact is, that is the view they hold. You just helped them carry it out to its logical conclusion.

Would these same people argue that if they personally opposed slavery, they still would not protest if a neighbor wanted to own one? This was precisely what Stephen Douglas argued in his debates with Abraham Lincoln. This argument did not work with slavery, and it will not work with abortion. Either elective abortion kills a defenseless child or it does not. If it does, we should not tolerate it. (excerpted from “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion”)

Want to learn how to defend your pro-life views and answer pro-choice rhetoric? Join me at LifeMinded and learn from the best materials available: “Making Abortion Unthinkable: the Art of Pro-Life Persuasion” by Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf