Why would people be against abortion?

I’m not “treating them” as separate things, they are separate things. If you’ve been talking about “human life” this entire time then you’ve just been arguing against a straw man; I said right at the beginning “replace human life with the right to life” when you took issue with “human life” in the first place, and have made that clarification multiple times since then.
You misunderstand my position then. I’m not “arguing against abortion” at all. I’m not dead set against it and claiming that it is necessarily immoral. I’m fully open to being convinced that it can be considered moral; I’m just waiting to be provided with an explanation as to how this can be done (as part of a consistent moral framework, without post-hoc rationalisation etc.) I’m only provisionally “against abortion” until this happens.
My argument is simply to tell you why I have not been satisfied with the explanations I’ve been provided with so far. The one you have provided is “well I can just define human life / the right to life as starting somewhere else”. That alone is not a complete argument, because that can be used to justify killing pretty much anybody. That’s what colonialists used to justify killing the African Bushman as well. I don’t see how it is possible to still consider this (and other types of murder) to be necessarily immoral at the same time as believing that the right to life can be defined however one likes. Hence the question: why is murder ever immoral then? So until I receive an answer to resolve this apparent inconsistency, I can’t be convinced by this argument.
Now bearing this in mind, what question do you want me to answer, if I haven’t already answered it above?

There are good arguments for allowing abortion under certain circumstances and they have been explained but you dismiss them becasue you ARE dead set against it. Pretending that you would change your mind if you saw a good argument when you know that you will simply reject every argument, good or not, is dishonest debating.

I already retracted any appeal to “human life” long ago, when I said “replace human life with the right to life”, since it is not a necessary part of my argument. I’ve clarified multiple times that we’re talking about the right to life, not human life. So yes, you have been attacking a straw man since then.
I’ve just told you. I’m not as “against abortion” as you seem to think. I don’t claim that it’s necessarily immoral. I’m just waiting for the explanation that convinces me that it can be considered moral as part of a consistent set of morals. I’m provisionally “against abortion” until then, because I don’t see any inconsistency in that position.

I already retracted any appeal to “human life” long ago, when I said “replace human life with the right to life”, since it is not a necessary part of my argument. I’ve clarified multiple times that we’re talking about the right to life, not human life. So yes, you have been attacking a straw man since then.
I’ve just told you, I’m not claiming that it’s necessarily immoral. I’m just waiting for the explanation that convinces me that it can be considered moral as part of a consistent set of morals. I’m provisionally “against abortion” until then, because I don’t see any inconsistency in that position.

Incorrect. I decide what my own beliefs are, not you.

If you did that then it would only have been recently. We spent the majority of this conversation talking explicitly about "human life". Why else would you have given the three conditions and made a huge deal about there (supposedly) only being one valid criteria? It isn't a straw man if it is (or was) the argument you were presenting.
To be "provisionally against abortion" would require some reason, else your position would simply be "I don't know". What makes being "provisonally against abortion" consistent? Consistent with regards to what?

To be "provisionally against abortion" would require some reason, else your position would simply be "I don't know". What makes being "provisonally against abortion" consistent? Consistent with regards to what?

We didn't spend the majority of this conversation talking about "human life" - you did. I replaced the concept of "human life" with the "right to life" as soon as you took issue with it, reiterated on multiple occasions that I was referring to the right to life, and avoided even using the phrase "human life" in almost all of my posts, in favour of the right to life. The criteria with the three conditions that I was asking for also related to the right to life.
Consistent with regards to the wider set of morals that the proponent of that position holds. I've already outlined the inconsistency that is apparent to me in your position. I've always seen similar inconsistencies whenever anyone else has tried to provide me with a pro-abortion argument as well. I don't typically see any such inconsistencies in the anti-abortion position, so I've already been able to accept it as at least a valid position.

We didn't spend the majority of this conversation talking about "human life" - you did. I replaced the concept of "human life" with the "right to life" as soon as you took issue with it, reiterated on multiple occasions that I was referring to the right to life, and avoided even using the phrase "human life" in almost all of my posts, in favour of the right to life. The criteria with the three conditions that I was asking for also related to the right to life.
Consistent with regards to the wider set of morals that the proponent of that position holds. I've already outlined the inconsistency that is apparent to me in your position. I've always seen similar inconsistencies whenever anyone else has tried to provide me with a pro-abortion argument as well. I don't typically see any such inconsistencies in the anti-abortion position, so I've already been able to accept it as at least a valid position.