Returning to Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates advanced the argument that piety to the gods is impossible if the gods all want different things.
Morality is impossible, because all humans have different morals... Claims of morality is sophistry without some singular higher power defining what it is...
But, since we are all properly obeying the * modern interpretation * of the First Amendment, good & evil isn't the question... Good & bad, right & wrong, etc., etc., ad nausea; are all inherently religious ideals.
The modern interpretation of the First Amendment (according to the liberal-tarians) says government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, government must never consider issues of morality and right and wrong.
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturdays. But it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean, whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
The mythical rights of men and women are also meaningless. The very concept of rights is also founded in religion. Since the enlightened person is freed from any superstitions about some "God," they are free from having to worry about "rights."
Only raw power counts and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful...
Morality asserts itself in biology.
To use what might be a more (o.t.) biblical description of sin, sin does not offend or injure God, sin is its own punishment. God's warnings against sin are not a threat, but an advisory a warning. "Don't touch that or you'll burn your fingers."
For example, humans naturally abort a large number of fetuses and potential fetuses, which for whatever reason are discarded. Therefore, any that make it through the process have already passed a large number of "life tests."
When people artificially abort, however, not only are they often severely injured physically, emotionally, and psychologically, but they have eliminated a chance to spread their lineage. To put that in biblical terms, they are terribly punished for their sin, by their sin.
It is far harder to see much of the damage inflicted by what we call evil. But that is a good indicator of evil in the first place: evil hurts those who inflict it as well as those who are its intended victims.
But you cannot look at evil in a vacuum. For example, one could say that the Nazis were terribly evil, but they weren't punished. And yet, where are the Nazis today?
Other examples of evil are far less certain, because in the final analysis, they really weren't evil, they were just called evil by those who didn't approve of them, or who didn't see them in the larger context.
This is not moral relativism; instead it insists on real world punishment to the evildoer based on his own evil--in its absence, we have to question whether what was done was truly evil.
But seemingly random bad things also happen to good people. Yes, they are bad, but they are not punishment. It is an error to assume that all bad things are punishment, or to assign them a label of evil because they are bad.