In a symbolic nod to social conservatives, House Republicans will introduce a bill that defines a 20-week-old fetus as a "pain-capable unborn child." Never mind that many in the scientific community do not agree with their assessment, or that the bill has no chance of passage in the Senate, these members of the GOP are sticking to the culture war script.

Their proposed law would require abortion providers to inform mothers that evidence exists that the procedure would cause pain to the child, and offer the mothers anesthesia for the baby. As CBS reports, however, the University of California recently looked at all the credible studies conducted on the question, and concluded that fetal pain would not occur until the seventh month of pregnancy, or the 28th week.

If we, as a society, deem the scientific evidence of fetal pain as the threshold for when to outlaw abortion, then perhaps we will reach that long-sought-after middle ground. But don't count on it. The pro-life movement has made it clear that their ultimate goal is a Nicaraguan-style total banning of the procedure.

Perhaps no one has written more thoughtfully (or controversially) on the topic of abortion than Princeton ethics professor Peter Singer. To try and sum up his sophisticated argument in a blog is not really possible, but he reflects on the pain question, as well as what it is to be human, and illustrates the fallacies put forth by both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" advocates. For further reading, try Practical Ethics.