Regarding Government Mandated Abortion. (in short)

Not long ago there was an accountant who operated a small storefront business. Now during a particular ‘intake appointment’ with a perspective client, the client explained to that he would require the accountant, through financial manipulations, to commit financial wrongs of the greatest proportion. Aforementioned wrongs not only went against the accountant’s creed sworn as a professional of his Province; these wrongs also went against the moral conscience instilled in him by ‘A Higher Power’ as he called it. What is the accountant to do? Is he to fulfill the wishes of his client or is he to obey the undeniable, intrinsic moral direction?
---
In another instance there was a lawyer, a practitioner, a keep of the law. He met with his client to discuss how they would go about defending his case. The client defiantly stated, “Look, I killed that man in cold blood, it is not a matter of what I did. It is a matter of you doing your job and keeping me out of the hot seat!’ This lawyer was not a God-fearing man, but he knew the laws of his country and he knew that murder was a capital offense. What is the lawyer to do? Is he to fulfill the wishes of his client or is he to uphold the laws of the land that he understands with absolute lucidity?
----
In both of these cases you have a professional who is asked to perform a duty that is ‘wrong’, even to a child. The subjects are faced with a decision regarding right and wrong. In life absolute right and wrong, matters absolutely, but one must understand that that topic will spend too much paper and ink. Suffice it to say that within this context, the right and wrong of a personal obligation is the Trump card. In the end of it all, each person will be responsible for their own actions and will receive in themselves there due penalty for said actions.
---
If one accepts the concept that one is to do whatever their job requires and be done with it, this entire train of thought can be finished. Close the page.

Alternatively, if one considers the life they have lived, recalling instances where they have been faced with right and wrong only to choose wrong, and were subsequently haunted by said action, our conversation must continue.

At this moment one much choose what heart they posses. Does their heart justify their wrong doing by its own value, or does their heart understand there is a right and there is a wrong that overrule the role of such and such a temporal vocation? Or perhaps there is a higher power that overrules every decree of man? A choice exist for both the deist and the humanist, the only position any individual cannot maintain on the wrong versus right debate is to ‘not have one’.

Now, if the concept of 'there is a right thing to do’ has been accepted, one must push forward, make further discoveries. Said moral conflict is magnified when one recalls specific, personal experiences where they were placed at a juncture by a secondary party and were forced to make a decision. As a rule, making the ‘right choice’ is generally more painful at the outset than the ‘wrong choice’. But, and herein lies the crux of this text, the person IS given a choice, they are offered a wrong and a right path as it relates to their personal freewill, whether that will is guided by humanism or by faith. Thankfully, even in such a secular humanist society as the world of today, this concept of freedom to choose ‘what is right for you’ is fiercely protected…or is it?


(Writer’s Note: 1.21 million abortions were performed in the US alone in 2005, rough 3,300 a day. Meanwhile, 3,434 in combat fatalities have been reported in the war on terror as of 01.26.08., roughly 1.34 a day.)
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/