‘My body, my choice’ is moral relativism’s decay on display

MORAL ISSUE TODAY: ABORTION

Abortion is a hot topic within American culture, and the cultural acceptance of abortion is an outgrowth of moral relativism (please see ‘What is relativism?’). To begin, let’s define moral relativism.

Moral relativism is a type of philosophical relativism which holds that moral judgments and ethical standards are not absolute or universal but are relative to the cultural, social, or individual context in which they arise. According to moral relativism:

• What is considered morally right or wrong can vary from society to society or person to person.

• There are no objective or fixed moral truths that apply to all people at all times.

• Moral norms and values are shaped by cultural traditions, historical circumstances, or individual preferences.

This perspective contrasts with moral absolutism, which asserts that certain ethical principles are universally valid regardless of context.

It is argued by moral relativists that abortion is an acceptable decision by the mother because:

(1) it is 'her’ body, which means she gets to determine if it is good for the child to die or not. The relativistic perception allows the woman to make objective determinations based on her subjective standards, such as feelings, and personal inconvenience;

(2) the prevention and taking of life is good if it prevents the potential of a hard life, such as disease, poverty, and bad parents.

In this article, I will carefully deconstruct these arguments simply based on logic.

Argument # 1: My Body, My Choice

Most people would agree that it is morally right for someone to have the autonomy to make decisions about issues concerning their own body, except if that decision would intentionally harm or end the life of another.

To begin the deconstruction process of abortion, it is important to point out the conflating of terms in the words, ‘my body’. Obviously, the infant inside of the mother is not the mother. They are differentiated human beings with separate DNA codes.

Since relativism rejects objective truth, it ultimately produces a cycle of skepticism towards obvious realities, such a living being inside her is a separate human being. Relativism eventually produces solipsim (since the only truth is personal truth), which is evident by the outright denial within the abortion industry of the infant in the womb being a separate human being with the right to live.

Philosophical Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist and the quality of being very self-centered or selfish.

How did I make this philosophical jump of accusing mothers who want to abort their babies on the premise ‘my body, my choice’ as operating from philosophical solipsism?

The solipsism produced by moral relativism is evident in the emphasis of personal needs, even at the expense of one’s own child.

Since solipsism and selfism are the byproducts of relativism, it is easy for a moral relativist mother with an unwanted pregnancy not to think of impact of her choices on the child because her relativism only allows her to think about how her subjective world is impacted.

One of the worst parts of relativism is the denial of objective reality, especially when that denial produces murder if denying the objective reality of a human life is convenient.

Further, women will often determine abortion is good because of their subjective feelings and fears, such as, “I don’t have enough money,” “I am scared,” or “I am not ready to be a parent.” The statements above are subjective feelings and opinions, which have no bearing as to whether abortion is morally right or not.

This type of truth-determining framework is called emotivism, which determines what is true based on ‘what I feel.’ This is held by many teenagers, but few philosophers. This is because, for most of us, feelings are misleading – and outright false- such as irrational fears or infatuations, and many truths are not even felt at all, such as saying ‘paper is white’ (Kreeft, 366).

Making the decision to terminate a pregnancy based on inconvenience, fear, or a less-than-appealing situation and calling it ‘truth’ is not only intellectually dishonest, but it is the epitome of selfishness. When self-interest rules, it has a profound impact on behavior, especially affecting how we treat other human beings. The notions of human respect and dignity depend on the existence of moral truth. Without it, there is no obligation of self-sacrifice on behalf of others. Instead, we can discard people when they become troublesome or expensive, or simply when they cramp our lifestyles (Koukl, 1998).

Argument # 2: “They could have a disability… or worse… they could be poor!”

Most absolutists and relativists would agree that disabilities, poverty, and bad parenting are all issues in life that are not preferred, and that society should work to help alleviate. However, the reason this argument is nonsensical is primarily due to the reality that the taking of a human life is far worse than that of someone living in poverty and/or with a disability.

It also begs the question to ask, then, why is living with a disability so evil? Why is poverty so unbearable that death is better? Why would someone conclude that discomfort is worse than non-existence?

Although poverty and disability can create difficulties in life, they do not completely remove the enjoyment of life or purpose!

However, the moral relativist would argue that in terms of abortion ‘it depends on the mother to determine which is worse: death or a hard life.’ The taking of life removes the opportunity for a better life from the infant, along with the ability to have a family, experience life, and overcome trials.

  • To determine that a disabled or poor child is to be avoided at all costs is short-sighted at best.

  • Human life, regardless of disability, socioeconomic status, or home life, is still valuable because all humans are created in the image of God.

  • Further, it is a contradiction for a moral relativist to argue for the right to make a good decision for someone else (child in the womb).

The entire argument for relativism is “relative to you, not necessarily to me.” So, at what point do someone else’s desires and beliefs get to nullify the desires of others? This is where relativism has brought us, to the point of allowing murder if it seems right to the subjective opinion of another person.

The absolutist would argue that subjective standards can never be a measuring line for what is good and evil for this very reason, because subjective standards can come from a place of misinformation, miscalculation, and even pure evil.

The unborn child may not agree with the moral relativist, that poverty is worse than death. The framework and logical formula of relativism collapses and cannot remain consistent with the notion of making a moral decision for someone else, especially someone who does not have the physical ability to speak for themselves.

Moral relativism has infiltrated our society and has not brought the compassion and unity it has promised.

Moral relativism has allowed those who lack moral restraint to have permission to do what they want and has given them selfish permission to murder.

Logically, the moral relativistic argument for abortion lacks logical consistency because of making a ‘moral decision’ regarding life and death for another human being (the unborn). It is also not a good idea to determine what is good based on fleeting emotions and ever-changing life situations.

Moral relativism can produce selfism, solipsism, and in the case of abortion, murder.

Previous
Previous

‘All religions are true’ Religious Pluralism: A Christian Response

Next
Next

Where did it come from? The History of Relativism