So we're back to the premise that the subjective moral scruples of any given individual are equally valid and that "man is the measure of all things."
it's the Bible, heretical as that may seem to you
No, it's your violent severing of St. Paul's words from their context in order to suit your momentary rhetorical needs. St. Paul never taught subjectivist morality: he taught that there was an objective standard of God-given morality in which murder was objectively, irreformably evil and in which eating sacrificial beasts was a matter of indifference. His message is clear: although eating this meat is objectively morally indifferent, it is also objectively incumbent morally on the Christian to treat his neighbor with kindness: i.e. if your eating the meat upsets your neighbor, it is an act of kindness and self-sacrifice to avoid upsetting him.
Abortion isn't a personal preference, however. St. Paul never said: "If your neighbor really wants to you to help him kill an innocent person, you should help him because it makes him feel better."
Further - there is a difference between buying something with money that may or may not be used by some third party down the road for evil and directly working for an employer who publicly and emphatically states that HE WILL use his profits in order to kill children.
Answer this simple question.
Do you actively investigate if a company you are buying a product or service from gives to baby killing organizations?
If yes, please list the companies that you will not buy from. If no, please explain how your willful ignorance is excusable.