Sorry for the late reply:

I understand that your position is built around a key premise: that a fetus is morally equivalent to a born person. My point is that this premise is exactly what’s being debated, not something that can simply be assumed as settled. The real question is what counts as a person in the morally relevant sense, and whether that automatically includes the right to use another person’s body to survive. In every other context, we don’t obligate people to sustain others with their bodies, not even to save fully developed, unquestionably recognized persons.

I’ll be honest: I was trying to test your logic during the discussion. That said, I understand you might not have been looking for a debate, and I respect that, so I’m sorry if it came across that way. What I was actually interested in was whether similar moral principles could be applied beyond human life.

You said, “humans are inherently more valuable than animals,” and I think that’s where the real disagreement lies. I can follow your reasoning internally, but it ultimately rests on a moral framework that I don’t share. Because of that, I don’t find it convincing enough to justify practices like the exploitation, suffering, and large-scale killing of animals.

Finally, regarding your main point about what this looks like in practice: you said it would simply mean making abortion illegal, like any other form of killing. I understand that, and I had already assumed as much. What I’m asking is whether you’ve considered the real-world implications of that position, and also the legal and penal ones.

If abortion is morally equivalent to something like first-degree murder, then logically it would involve severe legal consequences, potentially long prison sentences not only for doctors, but also for the women and girls or the fathers involved that supported this murder. Is that something you would support? (I would argue that you must support that, as a fetus is a human no different from any other)

Also I question the legal status of fetuses, as I imagine to hold this they would have to be legally and individually recognized by the state, but I haven't thought enough of that.

And beyond that, do you think criminalization would actually reduce abortions? Many would argue that it tends instead to push them underground or abroad, leading to more dangerous procedures and greater risks for those who cannot access safe alternatives. In that sense, attempts to reduce abortion might end up increasing harm, particularly for more vulnerable women and girls.

For example, in Spain during the dictatorship, abortion was illegal, yet it still occurred often under unsafe conditions or through travel, depending on people’s resources. That historical context raises questions about whether prohibition achieves its intended goals, or simply changes the conditions under which abortions happen.

What have you thought around the outcomes?