Conservative Response to Liberalism - Part #2

In a continuation of the post below, here is part two of my response to Mr. Brian McKinley's analysis of what liberalism is.
The next section put forth in the "Proud to be a Liberal" article by Mr. McKinley is as follows:
Liberalism is "Liberty." It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another's rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.
My first thoughts after looking at this part draw me back to the first line over and over, where it says '... the freedom to do as your conscience dictates'. This is being shown every day to be a major sticking point between conservatives and liberals. It was brought up in the comments on the previous post (thank you J.C. Klemencic). Perhaps a good place to start would be where I personally view this subject.
Liberalism holds to a moral relativism that is degrading the society. This relativism that is pushed onto people teaches that things may seem wrong to some people and right to others, and both are fine views. This view, then, appeals to the very basic, sinful side of human reasoning. It allows the person to justify their thoughts and actions, no matter what they are, or how selfish they are. For example, abortion as I see it, is murder of an unborn child. However, someone holding onto relativism can speak of the life of the mother, the quality of life the family will have, etc. and try to legitimize it all in their mind. Of course, even the thinnest veil of legitimacy is enough when your mind is wrapped up in relativism; which then convinces the liberal that anyone who doesn't think that way is 'behind the times' or 'not as sophisticated' as they.
Many conservatives, (not all, as I dare not lump all into this group), hold to a different set of moral beliefs. It can be called original sin (if the morality originates through the person's religious views) or I've also heard it said to be a black/white morality. Either way, it states that certain things in this world are right, and certain things are wrong. For example, murder and theft are wrong, where taking care of the poor and weak is right. By putting morality into these black and white categories of right and wrong, we are led to have certain misgivings that are held to strongly. This also provides a base with which to look at the world; it provides a reasoning behind the thoughts and conclusions one comes to about the world around them. There is, then, no need for long debates over whether something is moral or not. It simply is right, or it is wrong, end of story. I, personally, receive this moral view through my religion, though some come to it by simply looking at the world around them and understanding that there is right and wrong.
This morality is not 'out of touch' or 'behind the times' at all, but holds to what we all have in our conscience; what we all know to be right and wrong.
I don't mean to sound preachy here, but moral relativism, when pulled to it's conclusion, destroys all value of human life. If everyone who believed strongly in moral relativism, (even if they didn't realize that's what it is called), thought about what they were doing, this world would destroy itself immediately. There would be no reason to have children, as it is to much of a burden for the self-gratification seeking relativist. Besides, why not seek self-gratification, this world is all there is, right? Anyway, there would also be no reason to value human life at all. What makes us more valuable then, say, an animal, or a tree? (PETA comes to mind here) So, we could all just kill each other, and it wouldn't really matter. Besides, it might be seen as right and just in the killer's eyes to kill. How can he be wrong if there's no morality?
As you can see, it's a dangerous path. The only thing stopping a relativist from going that far is a little piece of the conscience drawing a line and not taking relativism to its full conclusion.
So, a conservative, (at least most conservatives), believes that there is a moral right and wrong, and uses it as a guide post with which to look at the world. It is not impeding someone else's rights. It is, simply, right or wrong. It is valuing human life. And, through valuing human life, a conservative then is brought to valuing human opinions, valuing human work ethic, valuing human freedom, and valuing human liberty. Conservatives do not believe in taking from the rich people to give to the poor. Conservatives believe in helping that poor person to work hard and raise themselves up from their situation into a better one.
Basically, the response to Mr. McKinley's entire look at 'Liberalism is Liberty' all comes down to where the morality comes from. That, also, of course dictates how you, the reader, will react to what I have just said, and really how this entire debate is framed.
I am at a loss of where to go from here, and this post is getting quite long, so I will leave this open ended for now and gather my thoughts on it some more. Feel free to leave comments below and let me know what you think. As always, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and show your involvement in the open debate that has made this country what it is today, and will continue to guide it to what it's future will be.