In fact, Kathleen Parker's “oogedy-boogedy” term applies more to the abortion advocates than to Christian fundamentalists. I've never heard a pro-life candidate argue that abortion should be banned because it violates Biblical commandments. The argument always is that it's been scientifically proven that a new human life begins at conception. Pro-lifers invoke DNA, fetal heartbeats, fetal brainwaves, and other scientific evidence to support this claim.
It's the pro-abortion side which tries to evade the issue, which wants the actual abortion procedures kept under wraps, and which has concocted the evasive “pro-choice” term to avoid scientific discussion. And when forced into a discussion of the real nature of abortion, what do they do? They turn to mystical mumbo-jumbo, such as Harry Blackmun’s assertion in his Roe decision that philosophers and theologians had debated when life begins for thousands of years and never come to an agreement because it was just too mystical and ghostly a topic. They even invoked quickening, an ancient concept which held that an unborn child was an empty shell until a ghost entered it, around six months into the pregnancy, an “spiritually enlivened” it. Whenever a pro-abort is forced to deal with real science in an abortion debate, he'll inevitably bring up the quickening argument. He'll say he supports abortion prior to “quickening”. By this, he means it's okay to abort an unborn child in the first two trimesters because a ghost hasn't entered it yet and brought it to life. Talk about oogedy-boogedy!