...and that's why we're having all these random shootings, people think human life is cheap.
Yes, this is the essence of the abortion ethos hidden in plain sight, yet few who champion the pro-death cause will admit to seeing it for what it is or perhaps fully embracing that horror in all its gruesome physical aspects is too much for them. Let's talk moral relativism for a moment, shall we? Moral Relativism holds that no universal concepts of human right or wrong exist. Thus, any act can be morally good so long as there is justification of the
id to suit the action. For instance, moral relativism allows for the democide of millions of citizens under communist governments. Now, in such a case is democide morally "good" for the people mass murdered by such official government policies? Moral Relativism says, "no, not really" but it also says that as long as justification existed for such mass murder of a populace, then doing that was sort of okay.
Fast forward to the modern day American abortion on demand "debate". Moral Relativism enters the picture again, for without it,
no one could support or champion or protest for or approve of
morally its practice. Therein lies the old axiom, truly, that the devil is in the details. Sadly, human beings aren't much different than dogs when it comes to an innate ability to be trained or indoctrinated into believing or doing anything, no matter how vile or obviously against the preservation of life it might be. But here's the truly ingenious part of the abortion "debate" . . . while no one can argue that fetuses become entirely unique and alive and independent human beings, they're also completely ******* defenseless while in the womb. Wait for it, wait for it . . . here it comes. So fetuses are completely incapable of defending themselves, right? So who's supposed to defend them then, from a human biological standpoint? The mother, that's who. The expectant mother.
Now, if--using moral relativism--human mothers can be conditioned/trained/indoctrinated to believe there's sufficient justification for not only not protecting their developing children but also voluntarily having them murdered, such as the whole ownership of their own bodies B.S. well then truly my friends, moral relativism will allow a woman to justify away any personal atrocity and even perhaps participate in any crime against humanity or at least stand idly by while such horrors become commonplace and are regularly practiced. Thus the immediate and ultimate danger the philosophy of moral relativism presents to our civilization.
For what could be more
human than carrying a developing child to birth and protecting it while doing so? Abortion is against the survival of the human race, for it removes from the planet one more potential full and healthy human mind and body. Got to hand it to old moral relativism, eh?