This sentence illustrates the absurdity of using legal or scientific evidence as a foundation for debate on existential matters. If "there is no sharp no life/life moment", one cannot objectively determine when an abortion is morally inconsequential and when it is ending a "human" life.

One's assertion of what is a safe "window of opportunity" during which the procedure is morally equal to removing a mole is grounded in existential hazard. No matter your position or where you draw the line, you cannot "prove" you are right, and the same is true for those you disagree with.

When life becomes "human" is a paradox and, as such, is always indeterminate. So, any evaluation of when it's ok to terminate and when it isn't is a matter of "faith", religious or otherwise.

Your thinking is an attempt to abdicate responsibility for any potential negative ramifications of making a decision you cannot be positive about.

Until all sides on this issue accept this simple truth, we will continue to spin the discussion into a debate about whose is the correct "god" to defer to.

A fool's errand at best.