I know. And we know that legally corporations and even trusts are legal "persons". That tells us about law, but it doesn't tell us at ALL what the thing is BIOLOGICALLY.
Nobody has ever equated a fetus with a full grown adult. Nobody has ever said that a fetus should have the same rights as a full grown adult. Nobody has ever said that a toddler should have the same rights as a full grown adult.
All we have been saying is that biologically a fetus is a living human being, and should have the right to not be slaughtered.
Well....kind of. I mean, if biology made it clear that the fetus was NOT a human being, then abortion should obviously be legal, as it means that the fetus is essentially an appendage of the woman, like an appendix. And therefore the state has zero interest in denying a woman the right to have it removed.
But it's because biologically, the fetus IS a human being, that suddenly it's no longer one human (the woman) that's involved in the equation, and both have to be considered here.
Generally speaking, the right for someone to live outweighs another person's rights. You have to explain why it should be otherwise in this case.