By definition, how can my position be the extreme one?

If I am the one who says that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, and even encouraged in the case of the life of the mother, and would even be willing to bend if SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE was not pointing more toward viability becoming earlier and earlier (disproving earlier pro-choice assertions that it is not human life until after birth). In other words, my conditions for abortion allow for compromise.

On the other hand, the pro-choice side says: "Any abortion at any time for any reason. No restrictions". There is no compromise present in the pro-choice assertion.

By definition (of extreme) I am the moderate. By defintion, the unbending, unyeilding, uncompromising pro-choice side is the extreme. By definition.

And it is a strange lack of compromise by a side that would be loathe -- under any other circumstance -- to not choose to err to the side of certaintly as regards the taking of a human life. To assert that suddenly the burden of proof of life falls to those who wish to defend it is an absurdity that is not to be missed. In any other circumstance (than abortion) there is no way anyone would assert that the burden of proof falls to the defense of life. Our law is certainly not based on that flawed premise.

And Amos,

To answer this...

"I hope you are never knocked up and abandoned. :D""

...another, purely logical way, I can't believe that you would assert to a nineteenth century me:

" Abolish slavery?! I hope you are never caught with 200 acres of cotton ready to be harvested, and there you are abandoned by your labor force. :D"