Bill, you cherry-picked Snail's excellent inquiry.

You said...

"right...I see that position. I didn't claim that my simply stating a reasonable compromise would convince 'true believers' to agree with me...what I said was that the LAW should reflect it, so those who had no particular religious beliefs would not be subject to the whims of 'believers'"

Even if they are...

"...you saw Group A cheerfully slaughtering Group B on the grounds that they were in some way sub-human (as has happened many times throughout World history), you would (if I have understood your posts correctly) condemn them. You might even be moved to intervene. I feel that you would not be too impressed if Group A said "If you don't like it, don't participate! And do not presume to tell others how they should behave in their own personal lives."

?

And you didn't offer a "compromise". You offered a "position".   And that position is getting further afield so that is is you who are starting to sound like the "true believer" that you criticize the religious for being. Because it is the two on this thread who are inquiring/posting from the religious point of view are also the ones, relative to the question of abortion, who are bringing objective scientific discovery INTO the issue -- NOT eschewing it as you claim.