Modern Genocide.

It sometimes horrifies me to witness the duality of our society. We suffer from such moral inconsistency nowadays that it startles me that some of us can navigate through this sea of opposing waves of rationalizations. Perhaps, like in natural physics, our conflicting relativistic “moral waves” do not really interfere with one another. That is to say that we allow ourselves to be morally dulled out of convenience.

Take for instance the matter of abortions. Why is it controversial? It shouldn't be. All that needs to be done is to decide - as a society - whether life is precious or not. All we need do is decide - as a society - whether we condone murder and genocide in "certain cases".

How can we, as a society of conscience, as a society that claims to cherish the welfare of children, justify the killing of innocents? Don’t kid yourself thinking otherwise, for no matter how you paint elective abortion that is what it really is in the end.

To call an abortionist a “pro-choicer” is an euphemism. By the time there is a child in the womb, the moral choice has already been made and a responsible person should be committed to the result of that choice. If the choice was not yours, it was even less so the child’s and the babe should not be made to pay for the sins of the father. To call abortion “surgery” is another euphemism. Morally, it is just as much surgery as euthanasia with the aggravation that the subject of the murder has not had the opportunity to live a full life before dying and is not aware that he/she has been selected to die. Besides, let’s not be hypocritical: more than 75% of elective abortions have nothing to do with risk of death or forced intercourse. They are elective, pure and simple.

To deem the act of electing abortion on the premise that a pregnancy is “unwanted” CAN be compared to murder. It isn’t even all that hard because there are recent Historical precedents where some social groups have been deemed "unwanted" and have been expunged – which is another euphemism by the way. They have been persecuted and killed in genocide during recent historical events in places such as Nazi Germany and occupied Europe, Rwanda and Srebrenica, Algeria, Zanzibar, Uganda, Nigeria, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Cambodia, East Timor under Indonesian occupation, Sabra-Shatila in Lebanon, in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Ethiopia, against Iraqi Kurds, Communist Mao's China, Tibet, Democratic Republic of Congo, Azerbaijan, West New Guinea & West Papua, Sri Lanka, Bosnia & Herzegovina and the list goes on.

We tell ourselves we abhor these horrendous acts of yesterdays’ tyrants, we promote wars and trials against them and then we see people condoning abortion. Why the double standard? If we are unwilling to accept genocide thousands of kilometers away, why are we so willing to allow it to happen under our very noses?

We see people manifesting strong opinions against the death penalty, and then we see them vouching for abortion. Why the double standard? If one is unwilling to kill a condemned man, why murder one that hasn’t even been allowed the opportunity to chose between crime and an honest life?

We see people raising their voices against pedophilia, but defending abortion. I ask them: how can that be? Why the double standard? Is it not worst to kill a child than to molest him/her? A child should be defended against ALL evils, including murder through abortion.

We see people vouching for abortion and birth control WHILST vouching for artificially induced pregnancy on varying grounds that reach from population control to the right to bear offspring. How conflicting can one be?

Our society has become completely morally inconsistent. We must return to the standpoint where we defend ALL life, or at least face the fact that NONE is safe.

I would appeal to individual conscience, except there seems to be none. Moral conscience is a rare commodity in our contemporary society. It has long since been replaced by relativism.