First, that was a temperate and reasonable response, and I think you mostly understood what I was saying, though you ought to know that hubris can be used by any against any, where positions are definite and strongly defended.
Yes, I am saying that the Church is not a means, program, plan or vehicle for preventing sins or crimes of those outside, or even inside, the Church.it is [as no doubt you agree] principally a remedy for death, via theosis in Christ.
Democracy is rare, but the Fathers knew of Greek democracies, and the Byzantine system arguably had more democratic decisions within the imperial dome than most nominal democracies. I frankly do not have a whole solution to the issue of abortion. I simply refuse to join in, or ask for, or impose, punishments.
In general, i am suspicious of punishment; it seems to me that God does not literally punish - and St Isaac the Syrian, among others, agrees. That being so, shall men punish? perhaps, as a means to an end; never, as an axiomatic relation to fault. But if the end can be achieved any other way, then I submit that punishment per se is wrong and ought to be abandoned. Justice, you ask? justice insists on the criminal repudiating his crime - and it would be very good if those who had, or did, abortions repudiated this action. But does justice then insist on pain and privation for the criminal? Even raising this question puts me in the minority. I fall back on the monastic fathers, who everywhere accept the repentant, or even criminals before repentance, unreservedly; on the parables of the Kingdom, such as the prodigal or the feast where the many are called, or the direct acceptance by Christ of Zaccheus, Matthew, the Magdalene [whose sin is not necessarily sexual - might be simply the perfume trade] or any other flagrant sinner.