Morality is knowing what is right, what is wrong and doing the right thing, advocating for what is right and denouncing what is wrong. When our country was born, there was a major fault line that would eventually split the country in two. That was, of course, slavery. Even though several of our Founding Fathers were strident advocates of liberty and freedom, even though in our Declaration of Independence the proclaimed “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” it took a civil war to free slaves and fulfill the true meaning to those words.
We humans, however, seem to have an unlimited capacity to rationalize those things we know are not moral. One of the first things we do is to change the wording of the activity or policy we are trying to justify. Prior to the Civil War, slavery was the issue that was the most rationalized, both by its proponents in the South and those Democrats in the North who wanted to stay in power. The only way that they could do this was to expand slavery into the territories in the West. (Much like today's Democrats who believe the only way they can stay in power is to extend voting rights to aliens, both legal and illegal, convicts and the dead, not to mention creating policies that promote voter fraud.)
To make the institution of slavery sound less repressive and hateful, many politicians and editors start referring to it as our “Peculiar Institution”. The greatest tool of those trying to defend the indefensible, is using bland euphemisms instead of the more descriptive real words.
Another tool that the Northern Democrats used was to change the direction of the argument. The senator from the state of Illinois, Stephen Douglas, was most expert at doing this. Rather than arguing whether slavery was moral or whether it should be extended to new states or territories, Douglas changed the direction of the discussion. Douglas wanted the people in those new states and territories to decide for themselves by voting to allow or not to allow slavery. His term for this was “popular sovereignty”. By doing this, Douglas was able to straddle the fence and assert that he was personally against slavery, but never had to do anything against it.
This moral cowardice is alive and well in the political world today. There are many parallels between slavery and abortion. First, the victims of both of these practices are or were those with little or no political power. Second, was the use of unoffending euphemisms by the advocates of slavery and abortions.
Those with an abortion agenda use the term “choice” in place of abortion. Rather than using the word baby, they will call the abortion victim a fetus or even worse “a clump of cells”. The use of these pro abortion words obscure the fact that a human fetus is a baby and not a “clump of cells”. It is not a polliwog, a tadpole or a larva. While the woman having the abortion may have that choice, the human being baby doesn't, nor does it have the voice that the pro choice politicians will ever hear.
With the millions of babies aborted since the Supreme Court unconstitutionally legislated legalizing abortion, it is way past the time to state that abortion on demand is absolutely morally wrong and no rationalization will make it right.