Because the cut-off for what makes a human a human is completely arbitrary for the pro-choice movement. There is no logical connection between a fetus's dependence on the mother for its survival, and the mother's inherent right to end the life of the fetus. After all, pregnancies don't just happen. They're the result of sexual intercourse that you should be prepared for if you want to be sexually active. I've had long discussions with pro-choicers over the years, including one with One Brow. And the best justification he could come up with was an analogy to a person who sees someone dying, but chooses to withhold help. In pro-choicers view, it is completely within the person's right whether or not to help, and thus dependency is always an imposition and is always a sufficient justification for ending said dependency. That's not exactly the most compassionate view of morality, and it is a far cry from the left's pretension of abortion access being a basic human right. Which isn't surprising since the pro-choice's battle cry is "my body, my choice", which is the same as "I'll do what I want". It ignores all the complaints about the right of a human not to be killed due to no fault of his or her own.
But I'm perfectly happy with exceptions for rape, incest, and out of considerations for the mother's health. There is also the matter of practicality of law. If abortions are banned, then some women will try to perform the procedure themselves. And that's terrible. So I'm willing to live with universal allowances for first-trimester abortions. But I don't have to like it.
So yeah, Islam got it right this time.
