It's textbook moral relativism.
Does this work?:
"I'm 'personally opposed' to murder, rape, arson, incest and armed robbery, but I wouldn't impose my values on others who want to commit murder, rape, arson, incest and armed robbery."
*********************
Apparently, freedomconservationist sees any opposition to his viewpoint as evidence of ignorance.
I guess we're just not progressive enough for you, freedomconservationist.
That is a good way of looking at it. Yes, moral relativism is a very dangerous thing. We should steer clear of whenever possible.
However, the Constitution does not enumerate rights for individuals relative to other individuals, or to the Government of the United States, for that matter. It only enumerates rights relative to Due Process of the states. Think about that.
As for abortion as murder, it depends at what point the baby is a “person”. That was effectively decided by the courts with Roe v. Wade in the lack of legislation. The easiest way I can see to stop this is to legislate another definition of a “person” that includes babies in the womb earlier than 24 weeks. If that legislation states that conception is the formation of a person, then we’ll have to reconsider the use of some contraceptives as well.
As far as I’m concerned, an abortion later than 24 weeks may indeed be murder in the eyes of Government. See it however you wish, but this is a result of our government’s lack of respect for religions, and there is good reason for it.