Summary: Morality is not what man wants it to be; morality is what God declares it to be.
“Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!
Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
and deprive the innocent of his right!” 
Simone Weil, the French philosopher, displayed uncommon clarity in exposing human evil. Undoubtedly, the fact that she had witnessed firsthand the horrors that engulfed Europe during the rise of German National Socialism and Italian Fascism and the attendant horrors unleashed by these socialistic terrors enabled her to see clearly the consequences of mankind’s evil. Weil was well acquainted with ordinary people’s capacity for wickedness. She gave much thought to how such evil could be. One of her most startling conclusions was that, “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.”  Let that thought sink into your consciousness: “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.”
Hers is a simple observation; but it is a significant observation. People engaged in terrible evil are often convinced they are doing what is right and good. This is especially revealing in contemporary debates over such stark moral issues as abortion, for example. Alex Sanger, Chair of the International Planned Parenthood Council is quoted as saying, “the battle for reproductive freedom won’t be won until Americans are convinced that abortion is moral.” 
There is no question but that pro-abortion advocates truly believe they hold the moral high ground, or they would not persist in arguing as though they were morally superior. In the view of this, advocates of death, pregnancy is an issue of women’s health; and her ability to terminate a pregnancy trumps all other norms. “[P]regnancy is dangerous,” Sanger concluded. “It is not a walk in the park for any woman.”  The current occupant of the American White House and his entire political party apparently have drunk deeply from the same polluted well from which Mr. Sanger imbibes; their views are amazingly similar to those of Mr. Sanger.
As a significant aside, do you not find it strange that there are people who will defend the rights of animals to live, even while arguing that women should be free to dispose of their own young? Imagine a world in which one-third of all great white sharks were killed for the personal comfort and convenience of those wishing to swim in waters frequented by these massive predators. Or, imagine a world in which one-third of all sea lions were killed to ensure that people could catch more salmon or steelhead trout. Of course, such actions would be protested vigorously. Yet, we live in a world in which one-third of succeeding generations are slaughtered in utero! However, the numbers of influential individuals who argue that mothers should be permitted to kill their children following live birth if they so choose is burgeoning! In spite of the obvious incongruity of their argument, those advocating the right to kill innocent children are prepared to argue that theirs is a moral position while those opposed to the slaughter of the unborn or the neonatal population is immoral! Talk about a topsy-turvy worldview!