Lincoln's approach to abortion

Terry Mattingly reminded me of a 1995 George McKenna article on how Lincoln might have dealt with abortion. I had been thinking about doing an Observer column on this. It seems to me to be the best approach to dealing with the political bitterness brought on by the Culture Wars.

The problem is that, as with any reasoned attempt at compromise, the position can be attacked from all sides. Some will even call it racist because of the comparison of Lincoln's anti-abolitionist approach to slavery. Here is an extract from the end of McKenna's article:

"Suppose, now, I were to define the controversy in this manner: It is a fight between those who are horrified by the above-mentioned acts, considering them immoral, and those who are not horrified and do not consider them immoral. "Unfair," most pro-choicers would say. "We are also horrified. Have we not said that we abhor abortion? Have we not called it wrong? Have we not said it should be rare?" All right, then, let the debate begin: How rare should it be? How can we make it rare? In what ways, if any, can public institutions be used to discourage abortion? If abortion means stilled hearts and ruptured organs, how much of that can we decently permit?

In this debate I have made my own position clear. It is a pro-life position (though it may not please all pro-lifers), and its model is Lincoln's position on slavery from 1854 until well into the Civil War: tolerate, restrict, discourage. Like Lincoln's, its touchstone is the common good of the nation, not the sovereign self. Like Lincoln's position, it accepts the legality but not the moral legitimacy of the institution that it seeks to contain. It invites argument and negotiation; it is a gambit, not a gauntlet."

I'd at least like some reaction before I write a column about this.