Abortion is not wrong. I personally think abortion is not wrong because many people that have abortions cannot take care of the baby or have been raped. Many many argue abortion is wrong because it's murder but many people commit murder of living things everyday? So my question would be what makes a living thing worthy of living?

Okay, that's not what I asked though. I asked what makes a living person worthy of living? And to counter argue that I don't think abortion necessarily means deciding that a person doesn't deserve to live. Someone can believe a fetus has moral value while still believing the pregnant person has the right to decide whether to continue the pregnancy. Calling abortion ‘convenience’ makes the issue sound much simpler than it is. Pregnancy and childbirth can have enormous physical, emotional, social, and financial consequences. Someone choosing abortion isn't necessarily saying, ‘I don't want this person because they're inconvenient.’ They may be making an incredibly difficult decision about whether they can continue a pregnancy. Why does the fact that a fetus can eventually become a person mean that someone is morally obligated to continue the pregnancy?

I don't think human worth is simply a matter of opinion, and I don't think people with disabilities are worth less. That's not what I'm arguing. The disagreement is about whether a fetus has the same moral status and rights as a born person, and when that status begins. Saying ‘my nephew was worthy because he was a person’ doesn't answer that question—it assumes that a fetus is already a person in the same sense. That's the very thing we're debating. And I don't think abortion is about ranking which human lives are ‘worthy’ and which aren't. A person can believe that a fetus has value while still believing that the pregnant person has the right to decide whether their body will sustain a pregnancy. Those are two separate questions: Does the fetus have moral value? and Does that value give it the right to someone else's body? I also agree that society should provide better supportfor parents, improve adoption systems, and make raising children easier. But those things don't eliminate unwanted pregnancies, medical complications, or the physical realities of pregnancy. Adoption provides an alternative to parenting; it doesn't provide an alternative to being pregnant and giving birth. So I don't think the existence of difficult cases proves abortion is always right, but I also don't think saying ‘a fetus has value’ proves abortion is always wrong. That's the part that still needs to be argued

I understand why prenatal testing for Down syndrome raises serious ethical concerns, and I agree with you on one important point: people with Down syndrome are not less valuable, less deserving, or less human than anyone else. But I don't think that makes abortion itself “eugenics,” because eugenics is about systematically controlling reproduction to shape a population. An individual making a reproductive decision is not automatically participating in a state or society-wide program of eliminating a group. More importantly, I don't think you've actually resolved the central disagreement. You keep saying “if it’s a person,” but that's precisely what we're debating. Saying “my nephew was worthy because he exists” tells me why you value your nephew; it doesn't establish when a fetus acquires the same moral status as a born person. And even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a person with moral value, that still doesn't automatically establish that it has an unconditional right to another person's body. A toddler is already an independent person who can survive without continuously using their parent's organs. Pregnancy is fundamentally different from caring for a born child. That's why “we don't let parents kill toddlers because childcare is exhausting” isn't really an equivalent comparison. I also don't think abortion means deciding which people are “worthy of living.” Someone can believe that a fetus has genuine moral value while also believing that no person should be forced to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will. That's not saying, “This human is worthless.” It's saying, “I don't believe one person's right to life automatically includes a right to another person's body.” And I agree that society should do much more to support disabled children and their families. But better support doesn't answer the bodily-autonomy question, and adoption doesn't eliminate pregnancy—it only addresses what happens after birth. So I don't think either of us has to believe that human worth depends on health, wantedness, or convenience. I think the actual disagreement is whether recognizing the value of developing human life necessarily gives the government or another person the right to compel someone to remain pregnant. I don't think you've demonstrated that it does.

I think the personal stories you've given are meaningful, but they can't establish a universal moral rule. Your neighbor's daughter becoming a nurse is wonderful, but we don't know what the alternative outcome would have been for someone else who made a different decision. A possible future life being valuable doesn't by itself establish that someone is obligated to create that life. And I don't think “a fetus is a human being” settles the argument. I agree that an embryo or fetus is biologically human. The disagreement is whether biological humanity automatically gives it the same moral rights as a born person, including the right to remain inside and use another person's body. That's why bodily autonomy matters. The toddler comparison doesn't work either. A toddler depends on adults for care, but they don't depend on one particular person's organs and biological processes to remain alive. A parent can give a toddler to another caregiver. Pregnancy cannot simply be transferred to another person. Adoption is therefore not an equivalent alternative to abortion—it addresses parenting after pregnancy, not pregnancy itself. The driver analogy also isn't equivalent. If I cause an accident, I may have legal obligations to help the person I injured, but the law doesn't generally force me to surrender my body or organs to keep them alive. Causing a situation doesn't automatically erase bodily autonomy. And the statistics don't support the idea that people are simply having abortions because children are “inconvenient.” CDC data show that 92.8% of reported U.S. abortions in 2022 occurred at 13 weeks or earlier, with 53.3% occurring through early medication abortion. Research on abortion decision-making also finds that financial hardship, existing children, lack of partner support, education, employment, and readiness for parenthood are major factors—not simply a desire to avoid responsibility. In one study, 61% of abortion patients were already mothers, and many described concern about being able to adequately care for the children they already had. That matters because “hardship doesn't justify killing” skips the question we're actually debating. If you believe abortion is morally equivalent to killing a born person, you first have to establish why a fetus has the same rights as a born person and why those rights include another person's body. Saying “wrong is wrong” doesn't establish those premises—it just repeats your conclusion. I don't believe a person's worth depends on whether they're healthy, wanted, disabled, or convenient. I believe people with disabilities have exactly the same human worth as everyone else. But respecting human worth doesn't require believing that pregnancy can be legally or morally compulsory. That's the fundamental disagreement, and I don't think the examples you've given actually resolve it.