Probably because the embryo, being an embryo, can't feel or process much. You call that human?

It's the basis for human life, and not the human life itself. And letting the baby be born would take away the happiness of the mother, and by proxy the happiness of the child. What if they're not financially stable, or the family disowns them because of such a young pregnancy? Not allowing the child to be born is better than taking away the happiness and the lives of (at least) two people.

...you would still cry in a miscarriage because you actually WANTED a baby, not for the loss of life.

And the fetus can't feel. It hasn't formed enough to do that.

...because there are risks to delivery? Not to mention the 9 months of painful pregnancy you would have to go through?

What about their financial status?? What if their family will disown them if they keep the baby, but they're too attached to put them up for adoption? What if they have physical injuries from the delivery? The baby isn't the only problem here.

Um... I think we should be taking the nine months of painful pregnancy followed by the actual birth into account.

I...if a cluster of unfeeling cells COULD feel, maybe you would have a point. A baby at that stage is literally just an amalgamation of cells and chemicals, so really they wouldn't care if they got aborted.

Is this debate about legality or morals? If it's morals, then you're right and the refusal to help is morally wrong. But if it's about legality... according to Wikipedia, there's no law against not helping. But Wikipedia is Wikipedia, so...

Why do you get to decide who deserves it and who doesn't?