We in the western world believe in the concept of human rights. At least we lay some claim to that vague notion. Generally everyone can understand things like the right of a living person be secure in themselves and their posessions unless they have done something that violates the right of another. Even then, situations arise where these rights will conflict with each other. This is why we have a civil legal system, to resolve which person's right takes precedence.
The first question that must then be determined is does the fetus have standing, in other words is it human. Fetus is derived from Roman for baby. Further technology allows us to identify it as human through a number of means. We could test it's DNA. We could perform ultrasounds. We could perform X-rays. We could, after a time perform a stimulus response test. Further if it is carried to term and delivered, it is a human. If it was not a human before, then what was it? This would establish the fetus as a legitimate claimant in a civil proceeding against it's mother seeking an abortion, as it is developing inside her body.
The second question is which persons right takes precedent. The mother need only be inconvenienced for nine months. If the fetus is terminated, that's permanant. I pose a more permanent right to life should take precedence to the temporary encroachment on the mother's right to her body.
A further question could be posed. Does the mother benefit from the temporary inconvenience of pregnancy? The answer to this is yes. The mother benefits from a lowered chance of breast cancer.
I hope you lurking DUmmies notice, I did not once mention God. Will you call me a fundie for not supporting abortion?
