It depends on how you define “human life.”
My fingernail is technically human life.
I think the relevant question in the abortion debate is “when does the fetus become conscious”? Consciousness is the foundation of our morality—if you aren’t conscious, you can’t suffer, and it doesn’t matter what we do to you. That’s why we don’t feel bad about eating plants, but would feel quite bad about eating dogs.
Religious people tend to think in terms of “souls” instead of “conscoiusness,” and many believe that souls are magically imparted onto a zygote when sperm hits egg—which is utter nonsense and should have no place in a public policy debate about abortion.
Neuroscience shows that consciousness is an emergent quality of the brain. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing; rather, it comes into being gradually as the brain develops complexity. (Another way to think about this is to trace consciousness back through evolution. Is a chimpanzee conscious? Obviously. What about a reptile or a fish? Yes, almost certainly. What about a starfish? Starfish have no brains, but they have complex nervous systems. I don’t know. What about a jellyfish or a sponge?) The point being, there isn’t a clear dividing line between conscious and unconscious organisms—rather, consciousness emerges gradually as brains become more complex.
But in public policy you have to draw some arbitrary lines (see, for example, the driving age—not all 15 year olds are incapable of driving, and not all 17 year olds should be allowed on the road, but 16 is a decent line to draw). So I’d draw the line for the “emergence of conscoiusness” at the end of the second trimester—after which abortions are usually restricted anyway.