where someone will answer some simple questions that I have been asking for months on threads like this, with no response.

If you believe that human life begins at conception, on what do you base that belief? Is there Scriptural support for it? (If so, what is it and where is it?)

Is it philosophical? Is it based on scientific evidence? If so, what is that evidence?

If you believe that abortion is murder, so you agree that is should be punished as murder usually is? That is, should both the doctor and the woman who solicits his/her services be punished by life in prison or execution? If not, why not?

It seems to me that most of difficulty hangs on this question: when does a fetus become a human being?

More complicated is the question of when is it moral to sacrifice one life in order to save another...but without some agreement on the former question I think it is impossible to discuss the latter.

If one wants to discuss, that is, and not rant. That's another question entirely.

Muslims (and, I think, at least some Jews) can get a ruling from a cleric who has the authority to make one. With Muslims, it is a fatwa, I think.

I cannot believe that a preteen who is impregnated by her stepfather and doesn't realize what kind of trouble she is in until she is in the third trimester should be denied an abortion, even if the baby is as near normal as you could hope for a nine year old to carry. In fact, I have yet to read about any woman whom Dr Tiller aborted whose judgement I would question. No brain, so the baby dies immediately -- no abortion? Pregnant because of a rape and repeatedly tries to commit suicide -- no abortion?

One concept I missed in this discussion is the very basic primal issue of women's rights to physical autonomy, and the right to privacy in regard to that. If there is no basic respect for women as autonomous human beings who are capable of making their own choices about their bodies and their life-courses, as opposed to having government entities making those choices for them, then what is this really about?

This "common ground" stuff seems to start off by denying that basic premise and then trying to find some other way to allow government to make decisions about women's bodies. As in, for example, what legal restrictions can be agreed upon to force unwanted pregnancies onto their bearers.

I hope this can't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

At some point in its development a fetus has a brain, and perhaps thoughts. It reacts in the womb like an organism, rather than as an organ or as a kind of tissue.

So while one might not want to issue the fetus a social security card, one might still consider the fetus a living being, albeit one that is totally dependent on the mother.

Ms. Kissling, have you read the comments thread in Joan Walsh's latest article?

Does anyone think they are going to have a rational conversation with the foaming anti-abortion nuts who call everyone a fag and a murderer?

Best of luck with that.

Herewith a comment in parody form:

♫ How to handle abortions?

"There's a way," said the wise old man
A way known by every woman
Since the whole rigmarole began

Make available? I begged him answer,
Accessible, low-cost, routine?
Can the woman make her own decision?
Said he smiling, "No, indeed!"

How to handle abortions?
Mark me well, I will tell you sir:
The way to handle abortions

Is to shun them... simply shun them...
Merely shun them, shun them, shun them. ♬

I used to be pro-choice, mostly because I saw it as an issue of a woman's autonomy. However, as I've gotten older, and more of my friends and family are having babies and starting families, I feel like I have to think about the issue more deeply than ever. What confuses me: How, if a pregnant woman is in a car accident with a drunk driver and loses her baby, she can sue for vehicular manslaughter. That presupposes that her fetus has the right to life, right? But when it comes to abortion, it doesn't. It all seems to be a matter of how you phrase it, because the truth of the matter is that something, a life, is growing there. I don't know, I used to be able to ignore that fact much more easily when I was younger. But again, I'm still not sure where I stand because illegal abortions are horrifying as well. Another thing that horrified me the other day was my friend, a nurse in Brooklyn, said it is not uncommon to treat women with stories of over 10 abortions, a recent one with a history of 18. 18 abortions!! Provided by a clinic. And she was in her late twenties. That left me speechless. That is just not right. I can see both sides of the argument, but I think part of it may also be willful blindness. I know this will probably piss of some people on here, but I just wanted to give my (conflicted) two cents.

As a scientist, it's obvious to me that human life never begins (except, taking the long view, through evolution). There's just an alteration between diploid (us) and haploid (our eggs and sperm) forms.

Fundamentally, a new human being (aka individual) arises at conception. From then to death, all that changes is our state of development (and eventually, degeneration). Although there are various qualities of "human beingness", such as reacting to stimuli, surviving independently and displaying self awareness, bright-line criteria are elusive.

However, even if "human life begins at conception" [sic], abortion is clearly not murder. In western culture, individuals are never obligated to risk their lives to save others (unless they've gotten pregnant, or joined the military, police or whatever). If my brother needed a kidney to save his life, and I refused to donate one of mine, I would not likely be charged with murder if he died. There wouldn't even be civil liability, as far as I know, although my family might disown me. If you disagree, please provide counterexamples with references and citations.

With all that in mind, I believe that abortion is best considered justifiable homicide.