It's funny that a long time lurker of this forum posts his first post in one of the most hot topics of the century.

Ladies and gentleman, what I do not understand about this debate, is why people continue to contend an issue that has been on countless occasions been proven to be completely subjective.

At what point is the fetus considered a human being and hence the doctrine of human rights apply and thus the "right to life"? Completely upto interpretation. Those of a religious mind say at the point of conception. Those of a scientific mind proclaim 5 months or so when the fetus is able to feel and think. Those of a more atheistic approach would suggest after it is born

With there being so many different opinions on such a crucial definition in this argument, how is it possible to proceed?

It seems there is one thing that most of us agree on and that is the welfare of the mother (ie. the confirmed human being) should be greater than that of the fetus (ie. that whose status is contested).

Hence, we need to create blanket laws that will cater to all individuals in society in the most compromising fashion. Since the woman giving birth has certain rights confirmed and the fetus does not, is it not logical then that abortion be legalized? It simply is the less of two evils here.

Some may not be happy, true, then again the rich don't like taxes either.