Abortion should be legalized.

I agree that there is ambiguity, and you agree that there is ambiguity. But the very nature of "ambiguity" means that there are some people to whom there is no ambiguity. To the pro-life absolutist, it matters not that others view the issue with ambiguity -- a baby is a 100% person on par with the mother. The fact that you allow ambiguity means you acknowledge this extreme (and the opposite extreme), however "flawed" you (or I) might perceive it to be. Yes, the majority of radical pro-lifers may be hypocrites. But that should not smear the non-hypocritical ones by association. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, is not hypocritical. He is pro-life on Natural Rights grounds, and against Roe on constitutional grounds. He is also against the death penalty and war, and he would make adoption much, much easier via free-market reforms. Your thesis was that all pro-lifers are hypocrites, and I think I've defeated that thesis. This is one of the most meaningful debates I've been in, and I've learned a lot (and will learn more as I investigate your neurology leads), but I hope you have learned this fact, as well. Again, why the absolutism? Why are there only two options? There is a third option: Abortion is legal in some cases and not in others. Furthermore, there's no reason there needs to be one national law (this is constitutionally illegitimate, and bad policy on top of that). I never argued for the death penalty for anyone, much less women who have abortions. But again, what you think MAY be life, others (think they) KNOW to be life. To them, they are not dealing with the "possibility" of a "maybe" life, but a full-fledged life. This is the same of someone having a 1% chance of dying the first time they do cocaine, but to the person it happens to, they are 100% dead. As for rape vs. consent: You make a good point. However, if one thinks of abortion as killing a human being, then one could still be influenced to allow that killing given the circumstances (rape). Maybe this makes them not "pro-life" by your definition, but I think someone who is steadfastly pro-life except in the case of rape or incest typically considers themselves pro-life. My counter-argument to your assertion of when life beings is not simply "there are people who disagree." It's the fact, that you admit, that the determination is ambiguous. You are correct that I admit I know less about neurology than you (I know virtually nothing), and maybe I could be convinced of your point if (when) I learn more. But the question of when life begins is not one that science can answer, definitively. And the question of when that life has equal rights to an indisputable human outside the womb is yet another matter, that certainly is not scientific in nature. Again, the thrust of your argument was that pro-lifers are hypocritical. I think I refuted that argument early on, and we then moved on to other matters. Abortion is a tricky issue, which even you admit. That's why its legality should be decided by the most local level of government possible, certainly not the Supreme Court inventing penumbra that wouldn't even apply to state governments under the Original Intent anyway.