CROOKED LOGIC

The mind that evades its conscience has demanded and continues to

demand a so-called ‘human right’ to ‘abortion’, to ‘separation without guilt’, to ‘sexual freedom’, to a ‘world without borders’ - and it demands it completely.

Such mind fails to recognise that these topics have been included AS the exceptions to (from Christian inherited) principles for a very long time. In other words, it is fundamentally wrong to break the rules, but since people are not infallible, they need ways out. Nevertheless, it remains wrong, even though the way out is offered and more or less tolerated, again, as exceptions from the wrongness to kill.

The term ‘exception’ has been replaced with the term ‘right’.

That is where confusion set in.
Exceptional regulations are therefore far from being ‘rights’. They are incorrectly labelled as such and are therefore also linguistically misleading.
If you look at them clearly, they are exceptions for which there are no reasonable grounds for celebrating them as being utilised. From a Christian and conservative standpoint these exceptions are being frowned upon when too easily being given. It must be hard to receive them, hence, you have to pay a price.

The basic principle that killing is a punishable offence is therefore an inalienable principle. However, if you want to alienate it, i.e. accept the principle itself as no longer valid, it means that killing should no longer be considered punishable in the FIRST place. By that crooked logic, it shall only remain criminal by secondary standard, from the perspective of a mind, which does not understand the law. In short, such mind wants a license to kill with no consequences whatsoever.

The non understanding is the result of hammering down these allegedly 'rights'

up and down in media and society until they became accepted as such ('rights'), which they never were and cannot be. Make the test: What exception can you formulate from an exception?