Sometimes an effective counter to this kind of non sequitur is to put such a system of moral relativism to other ethical tests in specific situations, and assess the validity of its conclusions, because, as Prof. Singer would say, an ehtical system that does not provide guidance for our actions is useless. While you run the risk of being accused of setting up strawmen and demolishing them, you can avoid that by providing realistic and clear-cut cases that illuminate the dilemma in non-trivial ways. So, here are a few:
"I am personally against murder, but I would not stand in the way of a woman's choice to murder her husband if she decided to for her own private reasons." This is not a strawman because there are many real-world cases of women murdering their (perhaps abusive) spouses. Other than in clear cases of self-defense, a murder charge is the usual result. So, what say the "pro-choicers" on this one, valid or not, and why?
"I am personally against bank robbery, but I would not stand in the way of a woman's choice to rob a bank if she should so choose." Again, not a strawmen because it serves to illustrate the if the operable principle is choice in an of itself, other factors could be used as a basis for justification of the act. IOW, the nature of the act itself does not have primacy, but rather the circumstances (objective truth does not exist, IOW). Again, yea or nay, and why?
"I am personally against espionage and I would never do it myself, but I would not stand in the way of a woman's choice to do it is she should want to." (See above.)
My guess is that these moral choices would invariably be answered in the negative, yet the "pro-choice" idiots turn handsprings over the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent persons. Yet the same moral lodestar (choice) is the operable factor in these cases.
And I think we all know the "why" of the answer they would give, both conscious and subconscious. Consciously, they deny the humanity/personhood of the unborn child. Subconsciously, they don't care because it doesn't affect them. Its done in secret, out of sight and out of mind, where the horror is unseen and untold (except for those brave souls who drive the pro-life billboard trucks around), and it happens to the other guy, not them.
I completely agree with you on this. What we need to do is keep getting the word out, responsibility and with Christian charity. State the facts in clear, compassionate language; show women that they have been lied to and that the "blob of cells" they are carrying is an aware, feeling human being; offer solutions through counseling and kindness -- adoption, support, love.
We must only vote for pro-life politicians. I am a Republican and I have, rarely, voted for a pro-abort Republican when the Dem was particularly bad. But never again. Some things are too important to close your eyes and vote for the lessor of two evils.
Riordan and Davis and one and the same when it comes to abortion. I don't care that they are both Catholic and "personally opposed to abortion" -- the condone and promote the taking of innocent human life, and encourage it through funding of abortions.
Bill Simon opposes abortion AND he doesn't cop out. We can count on him to -- at the minimum -- help promote a culture of life instead of a culture of death. We need to stand by him, because too often, we get a good guy in, and then leave him to fight the good fight without us.
We need to be in it for the long haul ... the primary, the general, walking precincts, talking to voters, manning phone banks ... we can NOT sit back and let the pro-aborts win and say, "California is pro-choice, abortionists do what you will." We must work for Life.
God bless.