If I had a free week on my hands, I would benefit from reading the political history of abortion rights in Europe, and how well accepted current legislation is there in general. It's true, the European approach (largely) seems to fit that 12-15 week compromise. While not one that many in the pro-life US community would embrace, might it be better in their eyes than a patchwork in which roughly half the US population has almost no restrictions on abortion? Would the pro-choice movement accept European-style restrictions if it could prevent half of American US from having almost no access to abortion? The answer is "very probably not" in both cases, but I'm not sure that serves either interests optimally. In any case, your compromise is what we are going to get; and I'm concerned/expecting the states *will* decide with the most radical voices on both sides leading the way and trampling any middle ground that might serve the interests of pragmatism and unity.
I'm someone who is pro-life who genuinely believes that life begins at conception. That's the point when you have an organism with unique human DNA who will, without external intervention or inherent defect, eventually develop into a independent human being. Having said that, I'm not particularly excited about a pyrrhic victory of banning abortion and not actually diminishing the number of abortions, and making things unsafe for mothers. I don't want to put women or their doctors in the position of questioning whether they should save the life of the mother because they are worried about jail time.
As such, I would be content with a ban on all abortions after 12 weeks, except for when necessary for the health of the mother or when the fetus has a verified fatal genetic condition, and allow them prior to that mark. Would I still advocate that we lean into the discomfort you mentioned when see what we are actually terminating when we wait until 12 weeks? Absolutely. However, I honestly don't see the point in trying to push for additional legal protection after that change, since more would be gained changing hearts and minds rather than laws.
"If a pro-lifer wants to restrict abortion, again: define the details like gestational cut-offs and exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and concerns for maternal health, and their reasoning. " Isn't that what the Mississippi Gestational Age Act was attempting to do? Gestational limits, Parental notification, and differentiating maternal mental from physical health are all efforts by the Pro-life side to find a common ground in a pluralistic society. When reading "Roe" and more importantly Casey's "undue burden" standard the reader should understand that the Court rendered meaningless the Pro-life efforts to deal in specifics.
The essential question is when does human life begin? Once human life begins, then it is the responsibility of the State to protect that life. One person rights end where another person's rights begin. This is the whole of the law. It is ensconced in our foundational document, The Declaration of Independence of "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
The problem with that question is that it is purely philosophical and relative to culture. In the past, certain cultures have not given children "human rights" (seeing them as "human") until well into childhood, some as far along as 5 years old.
We need to admit that this can't be solved philosophically. It must be solved pragmatically.
I think science can’t answer the question totally at this point , but it can help us come up with a better answer. For me the fetal stage should be off limits for any reason other than a non viable pregnancy or life if the mother. I think this is almost obvious from what we know about human development. A fetus is a baby , by definition.
The zygote stage to me seams fairly clear cut the other way. I can understand moral objections to abortion at this stage BUT not labeling it murder.
My suggestion would be 8-10 weeks. This would allow a large number of abortions , most of which are chemical abortions and unlikely to be stopped by a law. Red states could also put more hurdles in their laws , to deter abortions ( a tax on clinics or abortions , mandatory counseling from a pro life adoption agency , etc. ).
We should accompany this with education , improved access to pregnancy tests and the morning after pill. Including free morning after pills for rape victims.
We should encourage rape victims to take the MA pill and also HIV preventatives.
More importantly we should allow paid adoptions for women as an alternative to abortion. And we should work to make college , work and even high school more mom friendly.
I don't necessarily agree that a fetus is a baby, because we would not need both terms if that were so. The existence of the two terms suggests, inherently, a recognition of two separate but perhaps related concepts.
Other than that, I agree with much of what you say.
The dictionary definition of fetus often includes the word “baby”. In any doctors office ( aside from an abortion clinic )the fetus will be referred to as “ the baby “ or “your baby” and most government literature for pregnant mothers refers to the fetus as a baby.
While I understand your suggestion that two terms would not be needed , I disagree. While every fetus is a baby , not all babies are fetus. Just like a square is a rectangle , but not all rectangles are squares. Or a duck is a bird but not all birds are ducks.
It is not. It is quite objective. The difference between a 14 week old fetus or baby in utero and a 40 year old person is approximately 40 years and 7 months. Once the sperm and egg get together and form the blastocyst a unique combination of human DNA is made. This occurs about day 4. Objectively about 20 to 25% of these individuals do not make it past the first trimester and nothing can be done about this. There is no legal imperative or implication. The first trimester ends around 13 weeks. On the other hand we have a great deal of legal opinion. Medications and substances are not to be given to pregnant women especially before the 20th week, as there harm to the developing baby is potentially immense. So if we follow the science, it is reasonable to state that after the 13th week the State has a legal obligation to defend the individual.
I know it is a matter of philosophy because there are a range of answers. It depends on how you define "life." What you've defined as life, I would define as "quickening." "Life" is far more complex to me than simple growth and DNA or even electrical signals. And I'm not exactly in the minority. There's a difference between a possible human being and an actual human being in most people's eyes. That's why two thirds of people support abortion through the first term. Then the numbers switch in the second term, not because people necessarily think the fetus is "human," but it's definitely more than just a collection of cells with human potential.
In the end everything is philosophy. Science is a philosophy that posits an external reality, which can be modeled and predicted by ever more sophisticated mathematical models but can never fully grasp that reality.
There is an unbreakable continuum between the implantation, the balstocyst, birth, development, and death. The only difference is time.
Quickening is a time period that is a subset of life.
If your philosophy were to become law, we would have to investigate every miscarriage as a murder. I would hazard to say that better than 99% of people would find such an idea ridiculous, not to mention dangerous and not even worthy of consideration. So your position that a progression and a possibility of eventually becoming a sentient human means that we treat all stages of that progression as equally deserving of rights is untenable and not even remotely practical.
Ignoring the reductio ad absurdum response, let's think this through. Approximately 22% to 25% of pregnancies spontaneously terminate before the end of the first trimester (approximately 13 weeks). In many cases the woman may not even be aware she was pregnant, but she is usually aware that she has an irregular menses. The amount of tissue is small, and unless reviewed under a microscope would appear as a blood clot or bloody lump. Miscarriages in the second and third trimester are usually traumatic events to the mother. The mother goes to her physician/hospital. In some cases, baby stops moving and has died in utero. In other cases, it becomes clear that the baby is terribly malformed and has died. And sometimes there is an infection. There is likely a need to evacuate the uterus. No need for a murder investigation unless an informant brings information to authorities. And sometimes it is the life of the mother or the life of the baby. Rare but possible. This is done under the auspices of medical personnel. No need for a murder investigation. We are left with those who want an abortion after the 13th week (or whatever the decision is made to protect the rights of the baby). These by definition are murder and require an investigation.
The Constitution says nothing about when a child becomes a person. That's why Roe is being overturned - it was unconstitutional for SCOTUS to "interpret" where there was literally nothing to interpret from.
I didn't say the Constitution. The foundational document is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the means to attain this end. Roe vs. Wade is actually a legally different issue. It is not about a right to abortion. It is a question as to what powers are granted to the Federal Government. The Constitution grants certain powers to the Federal Government. All other powers not specifically conferred are referred to the States.
Neither the Constitution, nor SCOTUS, can grant the power to the Federal Government to take a life without due process. And in fact forbids the Federal Government is prohibited from cruel and unusual punishment (of which death of an innocent is the most extreme example). So, the question goes back to whether the baby in utero a human being is and entitled to protection from the Federal Government.
The Stats are not directly forbidden in this area. But the States are required to enforce all laws equally, cannot violate the guarantees of the constitution, and to ensure a republican or representative form of government.
We are back to the essential fact. The baby in utero, certainly past 13 weeks, is a full-fledged human being in all aspects. The Federal Government is required to ensure their rights.
"Neither the Constitution, nor SCOTUS, can grant the power to the Federal Government to take a life without due process."
Not to beat a dead horse, but killing in general is perfectly ok if the thing killed isn't a "person." We kill insects by the billions, germs by the quadrillions. Thus, the Constitution, our laws, or our SCOTUS would have to PROHIBIT the taking of life if it isn't a "person," because it isn't protected. They have actually done so in some cases - livestock, dogs - but it isn't the same as murder.
Agreed, the legal question comes back to the question of when does a seed and an egg become a "person."
"We are back to the essential fact. The baby in utero, certainly past 13 weeks, is a full-fledged human being in all aspects. The Federal Government is required to ensure their rights."
Certainly a specious argument, but utterly irrelevant. We are NOT required to base our legal system on reasonable arguments - period. We can (and do) say it's ok to kill deer in September but not in October (those months given only as an example). We say it's murder to kill someone, but self defense / justifiable homicide to do so in protecting someone else's life. The lines move all the time.
So long as the status of an infant is NOT defined, States may make any law regarding the unborn they want - or none. Should the Federal government pass a law "clarifying" an obvious (in hind sight) omission, it will become the law of the land - until changed. Similarly, we might pass an Amendment. But clearly, obviously, we ARE allowed to define the term.
Does anyone else find it ironic that one of the most rational and educated articles on abortion is by a doctor who admits he was not rational or educated on the subject until very recently?
Abortion is murder and must be prescribed except the tragic cases where two lives will be lost rather than only one if the life of the child isn't taken, as in for example, an ectopic pregnancy. Human life exists obviously from conception.
There always has been a middle ground. The pro abortion side preferred legalizing infanticide as in Virginia and New York's laws dictating that infants born alive after an abortion attempt should be left to die. This has never been about women or their rights.. it's about control and keeping the country divided and thus easier to control through emotion and not thought.
The author of this article is to be commended for recognizing that 1) the abortion absolutism of the Democrats and the pro-abortion minority is politically untenable outside the bluest of states and 2) the ultimate absolutist goal of the pro-life movement is politically untenable at this time outside the reddest of states. His promotion of compromise is the favored legislative policy of the pro-life movement. This recognizes that we live in a pluralist society with a federal republican government. This article is not to be commended because of its ethical and scientific legerdemain. Its view of the pro-abortion side of the debate open to compromise with pro-life voters is based on feelings--the yuck factor. Its dismissal of the position of the pro-life movement is bad science. Human life begins at conception. A human being begins at conception (or when the zygote is done multiplying). [Personhood is a philosophical question.] The pro-life absolutist position is that every human life/human being has the right to life and protection from termination by another human. No class of humans should be vulnerable to intentional destruction by another/others. The short-term goal of the pro-life movement is to work for the most restrictive legislation politically possible in a given state. The long-term goal of the pro-life movement is to persuade the majority of the nation to cherish every human life (including the life of both the mother and the child). Our moral obligation to support vulnerable mothers and their vulnerable children will continue.
When human life begins is settled science. Human life begins at conception. It's not a religious or philosophical question. It's not even a question, in terms of science. It has long been known.
Yes, there's a compromise to be made, but not on matters of science and fact.
The compromise needs to be where it's truly needed.
Women collectively need to harness their electoral power to force that compromise.
First, we and they need to take decisive steps to eradicate the image of the 'ideal male worker' and make the workplace truly woman-friendly.
Then we need to build the legal structures so that men understand that every sexual union may entail a lifelong financial and social commitment from which they may not escape.
Have I touched that nerve yet? If men feel uncomfortable about having their unfettered sexual freedom yanked back to the realm of human justice to women and children, then so be it. Yes, we need to go there.
We will never have peace until women no longer feel driven to desperate acts.
It's not a metaphysical issue of when life begins.
It's a legal issue of when said life becomes a "person" under our Constitution. That's why Roe is being overturned - because there was NOTHING in the Constitution to say either way - and so the judges over-reached in claiming to "interpret" it.
You summarized that the pro-life position is that the baby is a human being, human beings have the right to live and not be intentionally killed. Correct; but that throws all the arguments about religion out the window. It's just countering a straw man.
Atheists also believe that taking a human life is wrong. In fact, there are many pro-life atheists.
Most of the abortion support side says it's not a baby no matter what we see in the womb with modern medical equipment.
You write, "no single point in the path from conception to birth could possibly represent an intellectually and morally cohesive “start to life” for anti-abortion legislation."
Just so. The question of personhood begins at the moment of conception. Just because life only takes a moment to begin is no reason to value it less. It only takes a moment for life to end, too.
Just found this. I know enough medicine to understand the science involved. My issue with Roe v Wade is quite different. It was decided without first considering society' s ability to absorb change. Compare that to marriage equality for same-sex couples. It went from That's disgusting to Marriage equality in less than 25 years. Fifty years post-Roe we still have threats of violence.
Not a human? Name one pregnancy that produced a dog, a horse, a cactus or a tree. Humans produce humans, unless we are Dr Frankenstein or psychotic lab scientist.
Compromise? Half a dead baby? Get real. As a strict Constructionist, find the issue X (here abortion) in the Constitution. Any exemptions, quote them exactly from the Constitution. Not found, case dismissed, go to your state court.
You wrote:
"But what would a middle ground on abortion even look like? "
That's easy to answer: Europe. Abortion on demand would be legal until 12-15 weeks at which point it would be illegal.
This is the position of most pro-aborts. No pro-life person would be happy with this, it'snot a compromise. Compromise is letting the states decide.
If I had a free week on my hands, I would benefit from reading the political history of abortion rights in Europe, and how well accepted current legislation is there in general. It's true, the European approach (largely) seems to fit that 12-15 week compromise. While not one that many in the pro-life US community would embrace, might it be better in their eyes than a patchwork in which roughly half the US population has almost no restrictions on abortion? Would the pro-choice movement accept European-style restrictions if it could prevent half of American US from having almost no access to abortion? The answer is "very probably not" in both cases, but I'm not sure that serves either interests optimally. In any case, your compromise is what we are going to get; and I'm concerned/expecting the states *will* decide with the most radical voices on both sides leading the way and trampling any middle ground that might serve the interests of pragmatism and unity.
I'm someone who is pro-life who genuinely believes that life begins at conception. That's the point when you have an organism with unique human DNA who will, without external intervention or inherent defect, eventually develop into a independent human being. Having said that, I'm not particularly excited about a pyrrhic victory of banning abortion and not actually diminishing the number of abortions, and making things unsafe for mothers. I don't want to put women or their doctors in the position of questioning whether they should save the life of the mother because they are worried about jail time.
As such, I would be content with a ban on all abortions after 12 weeks, except for when necessary for the health of the mother or when the fetus has a verified fatal genetic condition, and allow them prior to that mark. Would I still advocate that we lean into the discomfort you mentioned when see what we are actually terminating when we wait until 12 weeks? Absolutely. However, I honestly don't see the point in trying to push for additional legal protection after that change, since more would be gained changing hearts and minds rather than laws.
Great article!
"If a pro-lifer wants to restrict abortion, again: define the details like gestational cut-offs and exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and concerns for maternal health, and their reasoning. " Isn't that what the Mississippi Gestational Age Act was attempting to do? Gestational limits, Parental notification, and differentiating maternal mental from physical health are all efforts by the Pro-life side to find a common ground in a pluralistic society. When reading "Roe" and more importantly Casey's "undue burden" standard the reader should understand that the Court rendered meaningless the Pro-life efforts to deal in specifics.
The essential question is when does human life begin? Once human life begins, then it is the responsibility of the State to protect that life. One person rights end where another person's rights begin. This is the whole of the law. It is ensconced in our foundational document, The Declaration of Independence of "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
The problem with that question is that it is purely philosophical and relative to culture. In the past, certain cultures have not given children "human rights" (seeing them as "human") until well into childhood, some as far along as 5 years old.
We need to admit that this can't be solved philosophically. It must be solved pragmatically.
I think science can’t answer the question totally at this point , but it can help us come up with a better answer. For me the fetal stage should be off limits for any reason other than a non viable pregnancy or life if the mother. I think this is almost obvious from what we know about human development. A fetus is a baby , by definition.
The zygote stage to me seams fairly clear cut the other way. I can understand moral objections to abortion at this stage BUT not labeling it murder.
My suggestion would be 8-10 weeks. This would allow a large number of abortions , most of which are chemical abortions and unlikely to be stopped by a law. Red states could also put more hurdles in their laws , to deter abortions ( a tax on clinics or abortions , mandatory counseling from a pro life adoption agency , etc. ).
We should accompany this with education , improved access to pregnancy tests and the morning after pill. Including free morning after pills for rape victims.
We should encourage rape victims to take the MA pill and also HIV preventatives.
More importantly we should allow paid adoptions for women as an alternative to abortion. And we should work to make college , work and even high school more mom friendly.
I don't necessarily agree that a fetus is a baby, because we would not need both terms if that were so. The existence of the two terms suggests, inherently, a recognition of two separate but perhaps related concepts.
Other than that, I agree with much of what you say.
The dictionary definition of fetus often includes the word “baby”. In any doctors office ( aside from an abortion clinic )the fetus will be referred to as “ the baby “ or “your baby” and most government literature for pregnant mothers refers to the fetus as a baby.
While I understand your suggestion that two terms would not be needed , I disagree. While every fetus is a baby , not all babies are fetus. Just like a square is a rectangle , but not all rectangles are squares. Or a duck is a bird but not all birds are ducks.
It is not. It is quite objective. The difference between a 14 week old fetus or baby in utero and a 40 year old person is approximately 40 years and 7 months. Once the sperm and egg get together and form the blastocyst a unique combination of human DNA is made. This occurs about day 4. Objectively about 20 to 25% of these individuals do not make it past the first trimester and nothing can be done about this. There is no legal imperative or implication. The first trimester ends around 13 weeks. On the other hand we have a great deal of legal opinion. Medications and substances are not to be given to pregnant women especially before the 20th week, as there harm to the developing baby is potentially immense. So if we follow the science, it is reasonable to state that after the 13th week the State has a legal obligation to defend the individual.
I know it is a matter of philosophy because there are a range of answers. It depends on how you define "life." What you've defined as life, I would define as "quickening." "Life" is far more complex to me than simple growth and DNA or even electrical signals. And I'm not exactly in the minority. There's a difference between a possible human being and an actual human being in most people's eyes. That's why two thirds of people support abortion through the first term. Then the numbers switch in the second term, not because people necessarily think the fetus is "human," but it's definitely more than just a collection of cells with human potential.
In the end everything is philosophy. Science is a philosophy that posits an external reality, which can be modeled and predicted by ever more sophisticated mathematical models but can never fully grasp that reality.
There is an unbreakable continuum between the implantation, the balstocyst, birth, development, and death. The only difference is time.
Quickening is a time period that is a subset of life.
If your philosophy were to become law, we would have to investigate every miscarriage as a murder. I would hazard to say that better than 99% of people would find such an idea ridiculous, not to mention dangerous and not even worthy of consideration. So your position that a progression and a possibility of eventually becoming a sentient human means that we treat all stages of that progression as equally deserving of rights is untenable and not even remotely practical.
Ignoring the reductio ad absurdum response, let's think this through. Approximately 22% to 25% of pregnancies spontaneously terminate before the end of the first trimester (approximately 13 weeks). In many cases the woman may not even be aware she was pregnant, but she is usually aware that she has an irregular menses. The amount of tissue is small, and unless reviewed under a microscope would appear as a blood clot or bloody lump. Miscarriages in the second and third trimester are usually traumatic events to the mother. The mother goes to her physician/hospital. In some cases, baby stops moving and has died in utero. In other cases, it becomes clear that the baby is terribly malformed and has died. And sometimes there is an infection. There is likely a need to evacuate the uterus. No need for a murder investigation unless an informant brings information to authorities. And sometimes it is the life of the mother or the life of the baby. Rare but possible. This is done under the auspices of medical personnel. No need for a murder investigation. We are left with those who want an abortion after the 13th week (or whatever the decision is made to protect the rights of the baby). These by definition are murder and require an investigation.
The Constitution says nothing about when a child becomes a person. That's why Roe is being overturned - it was unconstitutional for SCOTUS to "interpret" where there was literally nothing to interpret from.
I didn't say the Constitution. The foundational document is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the means to attain this end. Roe vs. Wade is actually a legally different issue. It is not about a right to abortion. It is a question as to what powers are granted to the Federal Government. The Constitution grants certain powers to the Federal Government. All other powers not specifically conferred are referred to the States.
Neither the Constitution, nor SCOTUS, can grant the power to the Federal Government to take a life without due process. And in fact forbids the Federal Government is prohibited from cruel and unusual punishment (of which death of an innocent is the most extreme example). So, the question goes back to whether the baby in utero a human being is and entitled to protection from the Federal Government.
The Stats are not directly forbidden in this area. But the States are required to enforce all laws equally, cannot violate the guarantees of the constitution, and to ensure a republican or representative form of government.
We are back to the essential fact. The baby in utero, certainly past 13 weeks, is a full-fledged human being in all aspects. The Federal Government is required to ensure their rights.
"Neither the Constitution, nor SCOTUS, can grant the power to the Federal Government to take a life without due process."
Not to beat a dead horse, but killing in general is perfectly ok if the thing killed isn't a "person." We kill insects by the billions, germs by the quadrillions. Thus, the Constitution, our laws, or our SCOTUS would have to PROHIBIT the taking of life if it isn't a "person," because it isn't protected. They have actually done so in some cases - livestock, dogs - but it isn't the same as murder.
Agreed, the legal question comes back to the question of when does a seed and an egg become a "person."
"We are back to the essential fact. The baby in utero, certainly past 13 weeks, is a full-fledged human being in all aspects. The Federal Government is required to ensure their rights."
Certainly a specious argument, but utterly irrelevant. We are NOT required to base our legal system on reasonable arguments - period. We can (and do) say it's ok to kill deer in September but not in October (those months given only as an example). We say it's murder to kill someone, but self defense / justifiable homicide to do so in protecting someone else's life. The lines move all the time.
So long as the status of an infant is NOT defined, States may make any law regarding the unborn they want - or none. Should the Federal government pass a law "clarifying" an obvious (in hind sight) omission, it will become the law of the land - until changed. Similarly, we might pass an Amendment. But clearly, obviously, we ARE allowed to define the term.
Does anyone else find it ironic that one of the most rational and educated articles on abortion is by a doctor who admits he was not rational or educated on the subject until very recently?
Abortion is murder and must be prescribed except the tragic cases where two lives will be lost rather than only one if the life of the child isn't taken, as in for example, an ectopic pregnancy. Human life exists obviously from conception.
There always has been a middle ground. The pro abortion side preferred legalizing infanticide as in Virginia and New York's laws dictating that infants born alive after an abortion attempt should be left to die. This has never been about women or their rights.. it's about control and keeping the country divided and thus easier to control through emotion and not thought.
One of the best pieces on abortion I have ever read. I will be sharing it widely. Thanks
The author of this article is to be commended for recognizing that 1) the abortion absolutism of the Democrats and the pro-abortion minority is politically untenable outside the bluest of states and 2) the ultimate absolutist goal of the pro-life movement is politically untenable at this time outside the reddest of states. His promotion of compromise is the favored legislative policy of the pro-life movement. This recognizes that we live in a pluralist society with a federal republican government. This article is not to be commended because of its ethical and scientific legerdemain. Its view of the pro-abortion side of the debate open to compromise with pro-life voters is based on feelings--the yuck factor. Its dismissal of the position of the pro-life movement is bad science. Human life begins at conception. A human being begins at conception (or when the zygote is done multiplying). [Personhood is a philosophical question.] The pro-life absolutist position is that every human life/human being has the right to life and protection from termination by another human. No class of humans should be vulnerable to intentional destruction by another/others. The short-term goal of the pro-life movement is to work for the most restrictive legislation politically possible in a given state. The long-term goal of the pro-life movement is to persuade the majority of the nation to cherish every human life (including the life of both the mother and the child). Our moral obligation to support vulnerable mothers and their vulnerable children will continue.
Why do we need one size fits all, let 5he states decide for themselves.
When human life begins is settled science. Human life begins at conception. It's not a religious or philosophical question. It's not even a question, in terms of science. It has long been known.
Yes, there's a compromise to be made, but not on matters of science and fact.
The compromise needs to be where it's truly needed.
Women collectively need to harness their electoral power to force that compromise.
First, we and they need to take decisive steps to eradicate the image of the 'ideal male worker' and make the workplace truly woman-friendly.
Then we need to build the legal structures so that men understand that every sexual union may entail a lifelong financial and social commitment from which they may not escape.
Have I touched that nerve yet? If men feel uncomfortable about having their unfettered sexual freedom yanked back to the realm of human justice to women and children, then so be it. Yes, we need to go there.
We will never have peace until women no longer feel driven to desperate acts.
It's not a metaphysical issue of when life begins.
It's a legal issue of when said life becomes a "person" under our Constitution. That's why Roe is being overturned - because there was NOTHING in the Constitution to say either way - and so the judges over-reached in claiming to "interpret" it.
We have a "complicated mess" because we have lost all moral anchors, as morality itself is now understood to be relative and situational.
Morality has always been relative and situational.
You summarized that the pro-life position is that the baby is a human being, human beings have the right to live and not be intentionally killed. Correct; but that throws all the arguments about religion out the window. It's just countering a straw man.
Atheists also believe that taking a human life is wrong. In fact, there are many pro-life atheists.
Most of the abortion support side says it's not a baby no matter what we see in the womb with modern medical equipment.
You write, "no single point in the path from conception to birth could possibly represent an intellectually and morally cohesive “start to life” for anti-abortion legislation."
Just so. The question of personhood begins at the moment of conception. Just because life only takes a moment to begin is no reason to value it less. It only takes a moment for life to end, too.
Just found this. I know enough medicine to understand the science involved. My issue with Roe v Wade is quite different. It was decided without first considering society' s ability to absorb change. Compare that to marriage equality for same-sex couples. It went from That's disgusting to Marriage equality in less than 25 years. Fifty years post-Roe we still have threats of violence.
Not a human? Name one pregnancy that produced a dog, a horse, a cactus or a tree. Humans produce humans, unless we are Dr Frankenstein or psychotic lab scientist.
Compromise? Half a dead baby? Get real. As a strict Constructionist, find the issue X (here abortion) in the Constitution. Any exemptions, quote them exactly from the Constitution. Not found, case dismissed, go to your state court.