“The measure of a man is what he does with power.” – Plato
If we have no objective moral standards, all we have to follow is our own, subjective moral compass. That’s all well and good until one moral compass clashes with another. What then defines the superior morality in that situation? Apparently, a majority. According to Breitbart:
“On Tuesday, thirteen Democrats on the California State Assembly Health Committee voted down a bill that would have outlawed the practice of sex selection through abortion.”
Republican Shannon Grove introduced the bill on May 6th. The bill was voted down 13-6. The Democrats—all of whom voted against the bill—are allegedly opposed to sex-selective abortions, but were afraid that the bill would infringe on women’s reproductive rights. Basically, this was the classic response to any bill that would restrict even the most heinous types of abortion. You want to give life rights to infants born alive following a botched abortion? I dunno, it might infringe. You want to ban abortion after twenty weeks, after which time it’s been proven that the infant can feel its limbs being clamped off one by one? Hmmm, I’m concerned about the possibility of infringing.
In a vile display, the Democrats then introduced a bill that would officially condemn the act of sex-selective abortions, while not actually making it illegal. So, tisk tisk, but go ahead and kill your little girl. It’s disgusting, but completely unsurprising. In context, it makes perfect sense. Liberals who are pro-abortion (sorry, pro-choice…to kill your kid if you feel inclined) have no objective moral code upon which their beliefs are built. They may have a “personal” objection to abortion, but they have no right to condemn others who believe it’s perfectly alright to suction apart your baby. Given that, how can they say that sex-selective abortions are wrong?
If abortion is simply a woman’s choice, it has no moral consequence. If you believe that we shouldn’t restrict abortion, then you don’t believe it’s wrong. If you believed it was wrong, you would have no choice but to stand against it. No one would argue that while they personally object to slavery, it’s a slave-owners choice, and we shouldn’t infringe on their rights. It’s preposterous. Yet that is the abortion argument. I personally think it’s wrong, but go ahead. I personally think it’s murder, but it’s up to you.
If liberals cannot deny a woman her “right” to slaughter her children in utero, they cannot deny her right to slaughter it because it’s a certain gender. She can kill it because she doesn’t want it; she can kill it because it was an accident; she can kill it because she’s too young; she can kill it because she was raped; but NO WAY! Killing it because it’s a girl, that’s too far! Abortion supporters have no right to argue that, so they don’t.
Oh wait, they did officially condemn it though, so. We’re good! Whew! That’s a relief. What upright, moral people, these liberals. They can rest peacefully tonight knowing that while babies are being thrown into trash bags, they officially condemned it. Sleep sweetly, brave Democrats, knowing that there isn’t a special place in hell for you when you die.