This is another instance of misunderstanding a stance. A person can have two different functional stances on an issue and not be contradictory to each other, just two different perspectives.
I believe that abortion is murder. From a moral standpoint this is reprehensible and should not be allowed. From a moral perspective.
From a political (or social) perspective, government should not be dictating morals, just protecting our rights. This is what "separation of church and state" was intended to be about - and only that. It's been so abused in recent years that it's sickening. All it was intended to do was keep the government from running the church and the church from running the government. They were simply trying to avoid the catastrophe of government from the middle ages. There was the state (country) government, and then the "Holy Roman Church" which governed all the governments of Europe. The church had control over the state. The knee-jerk reaction to that would be to have the state control the church. All the founding fathers wanted to avoid was letting the church mandate government legislation and the government mandate morals.
Now, off the mini-rant, I don't want the government legislating morals, or even legislating based solely on a moral stance. The government's job is not to determine or enforce moral standards. It's not the Church's either, although many try and have tried to do just that. That's up to God, and God alone.
The government's job is to protect the rights of those it governs.
I think that an unborn human's right to live should outweigh the right of a mother's convenience. That's from a political, or social, perspective.
Taking the life of another human is wrong. However, both God and government have allowed exceptions to that rule. Always have and always will. It's called justification.
From a moral perspective, there should be no allowances for abortion.
From a social or political perspective there almost has to be.
And instances of rape or incest obviously do not fall into the "out of pure convenience" category as they were forced and not a result of the woman's choice. Those are, relatively, few and far between, although still all too common.
I can support both of those stances without contradicting myself. My personal beliefs of right and wrong on an issue do not have to exactly match what I believe the government should do about an issue. There are limitations to what government can, and should, be able to legislate. And those are to be based on the established standards in conjunction with societal standards. When a majority of the country's citizens follow a particular moral standard, the societal standards will often follow those standards. However, the government should legislate based on those societal standards, and not the moral standard itself. To do so would violate our right to freedom of religion.
If a woman chooses to take life away from an unborn child, that is morally wrong, but that is between her and her God.
The political or social perspective is what is complicated, in defining what is and is not acceptable, or an exception to the unborn child's right to live. As I stated earlier, from a political standpoint there almost has to be exceptions to the rule. The problem is identifying, justifying, and enforcing those exceptions.
As for the single mother being "forced" to have and raise a child and choose between in and an education, etc. That is a really bad argument. Even if she is forced to have the child, she doesn't have to keep it. I know that there are also programs, probably through private agencies, that would allow an adopting family to take care of the woman's medical bills throughout her pregnancy and pay the costs and fees associated with the adoption.
I would much, much, much rather see tax dollars spent to support the woman (and child) throughout her pregnancy and assist with the adoption process than go to fund abortions.
If the system was there, working properly, working efficiently for these mothers to understand and take advantage of these options then there would be families to take the babies.
The problem is when these babies "fall through the cracks" of the system. We need to get these children into the arms of families who want them at birth, not 1 or 2 or 5 years down the line.
