Camille Paglia is an enlightened liberal. She may or may not be the first rational member of her species, but if she's not, she may be as close as a liberal can get. In her latest column which begins with a vicious dismissal of John McCain's heroism, she then morphs into a tough assessment of Barack Obama as prelude to an extraordinarily effusive bit of praise for Sarah Palin. Paglia's take on America's Sister is pitch perfect. She loves her. Who wouldn't?

But it's where Paglia ends up that really grabbed my attention. She says that she regards abortion as murder, but demands a woman's unlimited right to make that choice. That's bold. What's even more amazing is that she makes sense. This is of particular interest to me because it was only yesterday that I was wondering how the abortion gap between liberals and conservatives could ever be bridged, and I was thinking that the only possibility is for liberals to admit that life begins at conception. Paglia does that.

And so we are immediately closer to compromise than I'd ever thought possible. But let's be clear, I'm talking about compromise between Camille and me, not liberals and conservatives, both of which are so entrenched in the extreme that unless both groups adapt the Camille Paglia-Ted West approach, this battle will go on ad infinitum. And both groups are wrong, though conservatives have principle on their side: being that if something is alive, it's wrong to kill it arbitrarily.

However, I don't consider abortion to be murder, at least not all abortions. Paglia does, by the way. That shocked me.

Here's how I see it. A fetus is as alive as you or I, but with notable differences: it's lacking awareness, and at least to some point, it likely feels no pain. Consequently, killing a fetus in the early stages of development is not the same as killing your ten-year-old (who probably deserves it more). And it's not the same as killing a fetus in the third trimester.

So where Paglia says it's murder and still demands that women should be allowed unlimited choice, I only say that it's killing, but that women should not be allowed unlimited choice.

Mistakes happen, and while it would certainly be better, or at least far more moral and ethical to bring that mistake to term, I'm not going demand that a woman do that… the first time. She's wrong to kill the fetus, but she's not a murderer in my eyes. One would hope that her conscience would allow her to experience all the ethical considerations leading to her decision, but if she can live with herself, I would accept her choice.

But again, I'm talking about the first time. The second time, I would regard as serious misdemeanor, punishable by fine and/or jail time. not that it's more serious for her to disrupt a second life, but because at some point, if discipline and conscience fail her, the State has to step in and impose its values on the woman, which is the main reason for the State to exist in the first place.

Needless to say, a third time would then be a display of cold callousness that no society should accept, and thus the punishment should be stiff.

So If Ms. Paglia would accept this limit on choice, we can put this matter to rest. It should displease left and right equally, but I think it's realistic and fair. Not to a particular fetus necessarily, but to a whole lot more fetuses than receive fair and ethical treatment under the current situation.

The broad scale solution has to involve the admission by liberals that abortion is killing. The idea that we don't know when life begins is preposterous, but it's fair to argue when life as we know it begins, and that line of demarcation should be when the fetus is capable of existing outside the womb on its own. As I indicated, there are ugly choices all around, but neither side should expect to get exactly what it wants. That's not only unrealistic, it's not defensible.

I applaud Camille Paglia. I admire her bravery. But then I admire mine too.

Editor's Note: The image of Barack Obama in Freddy Kruger makeup is courtesy of MTW contributor, T.R. Oglodad.