Because we have nothing else, other than opinion or superstition. The legal position is the only clear objective position we have. If abortion is to be sanctioned, controlled, regulated or prevented, then the law must be involved. What we are discussing is the legality of abortion, which is itself based on what is legally considered to be a person. The only reality is the legal reality.But you give me no reason, aside from "becasue the law says so" as to why a fetus should not be a person subject to rights. How is "becasue the law says so" an argument for anything?
You keep banging on about slavery. There is a similarity to slavery here, but as with so much else, you have it the wrong way round. Slaves are owned. They have no rights even over their own bodies or their own reproduction functions. When you deny a woman an abortion, you make her a slave, a mere broodmare, used by society to produce yet another unwanted, unhappy, disadvantaged child.Your "Becasue the law says so" is nothing but question begging. The debate here is not what the law says, but whether the law accurately reflects reality.
This is like saying "There are no human beings that are enslaved, becasue the law does not recognize the humanity of black people" during times of slavery.
"This is why you leftists don't seem to grasp about truth. There is no "Her truth" "His truth" "Truth as you see it" there is just Truth. One's subjective opinions about what is true don't create Truth".This is why you leftists don't seem to grasp about truth. There is no "Her truth" "His truth" "Truth as you see it" there is just Truth. One's subjective opinions about what is true don't create Truth. I can subjectively believe that grass has no color becasue I cannot perceive color in grass. That does not entail there is no color in grass. What that means is that I have a problem with perception. My perception is wrong, due to a defect in my eyes. I say this for example. I am not colorblind.
And what does this have to do with anything?
No, abortion is legal precisely becasue the majority perception, namely, that a fetus is not a human being, is wrong.
If the fetus was not a human being, sure it would! If the fetus was not a human being, I would be standing with all the abortion supporters defending a woman's right to "choose."
No, it is legalized precisely becasue people are blind to the injustice done to the fetus. They wrongly think that a fetus is not a human person subject to rights.
We certainly are not. The pro-abortion movement has a perception problem, just like the slave owners did. Like the slave owners, they are attempting to define what is and is not a human person based on what is good for them, rather than what is true.
Leaving aside the fact that abortion has no more to do with political leanings than it does with religious leanings, this paragraph of yours is ironically the nub of the whole matter. Personhood is not a physical property like colour or mass or velocity. It is a human construct, entirely abstract, without reference in the physical world at all. It has no truth value. Like solidarity, patriotism, justice, elitism, it means different things to different people depending on circumstances. The only Truth, in the sense of an objective definition that we have, is the legal one. You are claiming Truth, but on what basis? You haven't said anything about WHY your position is the Truth. It is in fact your opinion, which has no more authority than any other opinion, including mine. On this subject, subjective opinion is all there is. Like beauty, personhood, less the legal definition, is in the eye of the beholder. What you behold as Truth, I behold as dangerous nonsense.
So , since I state that you have not explained what your notion of Truth is, I should surely explain mine, which contrary to what you say, is not based on the legal definition. It's difficult to tie down in words what a person is, except by giving examples. A newborn baby is clearly a person. It is independent, has agency, is an individual human being, which though very vulnerable is not dependent on any one particular other person, but can be cared for by anyone. A newly fertilised egg is clearly not a person. It has a small number of amorphous cells, it has no independence and cannot be transferred from one uterus to another. It cannot even be described as individual, since it has the capacity to split into two or more separate individuals. It has unique human DNA but so has a cancer cell. It doesn't look like or act like a recognisable human being. It has no agency.
So at some point between fertilization and birth the organism becomes a person. In most cases, I am content to leave it at that, respecting the mother's feelings in the matter. However, solely for the purpose of law, it is necessary to draw a line. The simplest place to draw a line is birth, and for all practical purposes, that's what everyone does, and always have done. Korean law has just been changed to recognise this reality. But I accept that if we are talking about abortion, then the moment of delivery is not an appropriate place to draw the line. I say that we draw the line when the foetus is sufficiently developed to survive delivery, whether or not it is delivered. So no abortion for third trimester pregnancy except where the foetus is malformed to the point of not being viable. Sadly, not all pregnancies are the same, and that point is not precisely determinable. I personally, would set the limit at twenty weeks, but I would not quibble with twenty four or with sixteen. Most abortions take place before twelve weeks, and after that there are normally unusual circumstances in play.
So, human, alive and capable of surviving and thriving after birth. Not very precise, but as honest as I can be. That's my version of the Truth. And it is just as true and valid and authentic as yours, the basis of which you have not explained so far.