Abortion is the most contradictory concept in human history today. This is worsened by the fact that one has to be on either side of the debate and not on both; neither can he/she be neutral. One group involves ‘pro-life’ and the other ‘pro-choice’. Therefore as one insists on preserving life no matter the situation, the pro-choice believe the women have a right to choose whether or not to carry the fetus to term or not. Simply, put terminate life. However, the major point of contention has not been whether the mother is the victim or not; but more on where does the fetus really attain the status of a person with rights and the ability to make a choice. A number of justifications have been conjured to legitimize abortion. ‘Self-defense’ having been supported by those that subscribe to this belief fails when it has been proved that not only does the mother have basic human rights, but also does the infant. The second justification based on utilitarianism holds less water as it favors a person’s (mother’s) choice more than the value of life. On the contrary, the belief in the concept of ‘personhood’ stems from the origins of rights not being regulated because we are biological species but purely on the grounds that we have mental capabilities, (Hayworth 2001: 72-73). Being one of the initial campaigners of these rights, Diana Alstad, (1997) is proud to have contributed to legalizing abortion. In her talk at National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), she is stern in defending the notion that their access to abortion had been eroded and the right to abortion threatened. Referring to Roe v. Wade, the 1998 US Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion, she pegs the blame on this decision for initially politically galvanizing their religious right. Her view is tied to a long-fought battle that up till now, no longer accords women the attention that was initially their plight before Roe v. Wade decision. Instead, the reactionary element has shifted and made the point of focus on infants, fetuses, and zygotes. As a precursor, the abortion debate is merely between fundamentalists and modern people over basic values. Though on a higher scale this debate spans into the big question, “who has the right to decide what’s right?” Similarly, on the pro-life camp, it is almost impossible to elaborate on facts for tarnishing abortion as murder without contrasting some of the beliefs one holds high. Therefore, it has for both camps to stand out of the debate without feeling that he has over-stepped on some ideologies he upholds. The morality of abortion, therefore, has to be feted with scientifically proven evidence/research in order for it to be instituted with laws governing abortion. Otherwise, the debates keep on raging without ultimately pointing out who or what is the right ‘direction’ to follow no such regulations would be established anytime soon. An example involves the argument that illegality in abortion persists when a woman knowingly terminates a pregnancy and walks without being treated like a murderer. This is clarified more by the way the human reaction towards the death of a person varies with the ‘death of an infant. Here, it is clear that humans generally treat both deaths differently; valuing one more than the oth