If we allow truth, and therefore jurisprudence, to be defined subjectively by “...people and families [who] make there own decisions based on there beliefs about this issue,” we will live in anarchy and moral chaos. For example one group could advocate their right to have sex with your underage children and according to your premise, they should have the right to do so.
Society and its laws must appeal to a moral standard that transcends their own human inclinations. Hence western civilization, flawed as it has been, has been built on both natural law (e.g. it is counter intuitive for a mother to kill its young) and transcendent law, in the West historically Judeo-Christian values.
That is the philosophical underpinning of the U. S. Constitution.
The founding fathers understood this and therefore charged government with the responsibility, of among other things, protecting human life, noting that these “self-evident” “rights” had their source in “their Creator,” not government, politicians, or any other human institution.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (emphasis mine)
Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the prevailing argument in Roe v. Wade, acknowledged that his case would fail if the personhood of the unborn could be established. Here is what he wrote, "If this suggestion of personhood [of the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
Subsequent to the writing of Roe v. Wade in 1973, with the discovery of DNA, it has been scientifically established that the unborn are human from the moment of conception. That debate is over.
For example, Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, M.D. of Harvard University Medical School, agrees, "…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." I could site endless numbers of scientists who have drawn the same conclusion from the medical/scientific evidence.
Therefore pro-life apologist, Scott Klusendorf, is correct when he says that, "…elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. ..killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong."
The advocates for a woman’s right to kill her unborn child know they have lost the argument that life in the womb is merely a "tissue mass" or a "product of conception."
From both a legal and moral perspective, therefore, the central issue in the abortion debate is not "women's rights" or a “woman’s right to choose,” but the "human rights, the "civil rights" of the unborn. You cannot extend to a woman the right to kill her unborn child, as the U. S. Court has done, without at the same time denying her child the “unalienable” right to live, guaranteed by the U. S. constitution.
The question we should ask is, in light of the irrefutable evidence
that life begins at conception, why has the Supreme Court not reversed its ruling that denied the personhood of the unborn?
Why do politicians continue to support state sanctioned killing of unborn children?
Perhaps John Piper has exposed the reason. He writes,
"…when people benefit from wrongdoing or wrong-thinking,
they will turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the mounting evidence for what is right and what is true.The mind selectively sees what will justify the desires of the heart. In the end that is what must be changed."
That is why the abortion issue is ultimately a gospel issue. Jesus Christ alone, can change the human heart to embrace the truth revealed both in nature (science) and the His revelation of truth to man, the Bible.