“The morality of compromise sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness or an admission of defeat. Strong men don’t compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised.”

–Andrew Carnegie

In the Old Testament’s 1 Kings, there’s a story about two mothers, both with infant sons. When one of the babies dies, his mother switches him for the living child in the middle of the night. The other mother goes to King Solomon, petitioning to have her child returned.

Each woman tells the king the baby belongs to her. Solomon, in his legendary wisdom, decides to have the baby cut in half, with each woman to get her share. The rightful mother refuses, while the imposter accepts the proposition. Having heard their responses, the king knows to award the baby (intact!) to his actual mother.

The baby’s mother would not compromise on the moral issue of killing her child in order to satisfy both women’s wish to have possession of the baby. It makes perfect sense. But, is there ever an instance when moral compromise is not only acceptable but desirable as the best option?

Perhaps, abortion? Okay, stay with me–even if you would cast your lot with Carnegie’s opinion stated above. Last year, the Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the abortion issue to the states. Since then, some states have crafted their own legislation, all of which represents various restrictions on abortion, or none at all.

If polling is correct, the vast majority of Americans view abortion as, perhaps, regrettable but allowable … with conditions. The extremes of both sides of the issue advocate for either a total ban or no restrictions at all, even to near-term pregnancy. And, they lobby vociferously for their respective views, unwilling to budge. So, the rancor continues.

Another moral issue, the death penalty, is legislated at the state level. While there are people working tirelessly to end the practice, it receives nowhere near the publicity abortion does. Why? Maybe it’s the sheer numbers–the enormity of the issue. The number of death row inmates or those already put to death pales in comparison to the estimated sixty-five million abortions  while Roe was the law of the land (1973-2022).

Or, maybe it’s hard to conjure up sympathy for a criminal convicted of a heinous crime, but not for an innocent woman, especially when abortion and it’s inevitable outcome are euphemistically couched as “women’s reproductive health,” ignoring the destruction of life.

But can both sides not take a “win” on abortion, albeit a somewhat tainted one? Is it not better to put restrictions on it to make it safe and legal but, hopefully, infrequently needed? Wouldn’t both sides achieve some part of what they’re seeking, and still have hope their view will ultimately prevail?

Our nation’s past history from 1973 to 2022 is simply prologue to a story yet to be written. We don’t know where each state will land on the issue … or even the country, for that matter. Both major parties’ numerous candidates for the U.S. presidency have expressed their views on abortion, and they’re as diverse as are the views of the American people: Return to Roe? Let Congress legislate a national standard? Leave it to the states?

As with so many things, our individual voices would be powerless but for the privilege of voting. Like we do with any other issue important to us, we can assess the candidates’ views on abortion and vote accordingly. Whether it’s at the state or federal level, legislators, not Supreme Court justices, should represent the will of the people and determine the course we’ll take.

That’s how a democratic republic works. While it’s not perfect, there’s no better system on Earth.