I agree that the ABA should be neutral. I'm not sure that neutrality on abortion is "consistent with the Constitution," which protects the inalienable right to life. The stance of the Texas Bar Association is not something in which I am tremendously interested, and was not one of the major points of my previous post. I was simply stating that Miers has not made activism against abortion her life's work, as you seemed to have claimed.
Responding to your second point, "if an entity can be made to be against what you are against, it can also be made to be for what you are against. Where do you go from there?", Would you then suggest that we should not try to pull the Supreme Court to the Right, as it could eventually swing Left again?
How is opposition to abortion "morally wrong?"
As to that I said about entities being for or against what you are for or against. The Supreme Court being a branch of government makes the fight to make it more conservative not fall under what I was talking about. Especially since bringing the court to the right would by proxy make it more in line with the Constitution, since it's libs on the court who make rulings against the clear intent of the Constitution.
The best analogy I can give about what I said before it this. I would strongly oppose the government passing any kind of legislation making homosexuality illegal. Or islam in this country. Much as on an emotional level, I would like that to happen, on a rational level, as a Christian, those would be two horrible things to happen. Because of the government could make those things illegal and a crime, they could also make Christianity illegal, and put people like me in jail. That's what I mean, and that's why entities like the ABA should have NO opinion one way or another on issues, especially issues like abortion.