Please explain how abortion can be both 'moral' and 'immoral' at the same time. Two opposing positions cannot possibly be reconciled when one or the other must be true and the other, false!
No the BIBLE, written by God does. We are a country based on Godly values and the Ten Commandments, love it or leave it.
When it comes to murder of the most helpless and defenseless of humanity which in nearly of all cases you willfully helped create, I dare say there's only right and wrong.
Your suggestion that standing on the side of "right" on the abortion issue is somehow demonstrative of "monopoly" on morality is, I hope, meant in jest. I reject the mental gymnastics and justifications of the pro-abortion movement as passing for morality.
No "civilized society" can support legal abortion. I know some conservatives (like Michael Medved) decry likening the abortion industry to other attrocities in history, perhaps even the Holocaust, but it is what it is: the willful creation of the human beings only to flee from one's decision and instead order the baby ripped apart on a whim like a child would tease his friend: "Here's this toy you've dreamed of having." And, as the friend reaches for it, the child draws a malevolent grin upon its face and screams, "TRICK!," yanking the toy away.
The difference is with abortion we're generally talking responsible adults, designed to be the protectors of their offspring. And the "toy" snatched away, is one's very life which the developing baby can't even defend. The line is fine between the murderous coward in Texas who drowned her own helpless baby along with her other children and the woman who goes to a clinic for an abortion because she doesn't "want" the baby. At least the Texas mother doesn't pretend to be anything other than mentally ill.
Look beyond the "pro-choice" rhetoric and theorical cases and see how it's really used: as birth control; there are *always* alternatives to abortion.
This nation regulates medical procedures all the time, I fail to see why abortion should be any different simply because the woman didn't intend to pro-create when she had intercourse. Do you not find it funny that the man's rights of pro-creation aren't protected or considered. This reality speaks volumes about the "pro-choice" movement. They're not really about "reproductive rights" or "equality" at all. They're about power over others, power over men and power over the very lives of offspring.