They truly do value the woman's life over a human life.

Pregnancy can cause death or other issues. There are certainly times that pregnancy should be ended when it is the choice between a mother and death, and I think everyone would agree with that without a doubt. It stops being "abortion" when it is a question of life vs life, especially when it's a choice between 1 death or 2.

Your reprhasing is exactly what I'm talking about. People are uncomfortable with this idea that they are supporting a very cold, calculating, or ideological idea of the world. I personally think it's fine, and (ego much?) I think I know the truth of the matter where so many try to deny it. Abortion isn't happy emotional roses, it's a dead potential child and a moderately better off non-mother.

Are all lives equal?

I figured I already answered this question. Humanity kills one another for very stupid things. Some lives, like the homeless, the poor, those groups that only take from society without giving to it, and so on are objectively less valuable than other human beings, and are treated as objectively less valuable by the society we live in.

We understand we can make them more valuable, that human beings represent potential that can change by a good environment. That doesn't mean the person is more valuable, only that they can become as such. If they don't change, they remain worthless.

I know it sounds monstrous, but I really want to stress that I truly believe in the idea that all our "feel good" morals come from a solid basis in the fact that those morals reflect onto the real world. We should help people because it is good to do so in all ways you might measure, not because we feel it is good. We should be kind because it helps us all to be strong and healthy people in a stable environment where everyone benefits. I believe that these things aren't just feelings I have, things I want to do because of empathy, but that they can be followed by/after abandoning emotion and empathy.

I find the way I talk about people in such ways because I seek for a way to align my view of the physical world as a meaningless/morality as a subjective thing that doesn't really exist. Wanting to care and help and be part of something meaningful and important is difficult when you accept that as true. I, by no means, want to support what I believe exists in the physical world, but I cannot find a way to see any reality but that one, so I must transform it into what I want it to be.

If you have a body but you can't live in it - you can only survive if you tack your body onto a healthy, self-sufficient person's and feed through them, regulate through them, etc - then are you really a person?

Babies are no longer as valuable as they used to be, so we must stop calling them human as you are doing here. In the past, it was useful to consider all babies as human, as their soul began to exist the moment of conception. Today it is not, so the definitions change as we see fit. We did the same with other races when we needed slaves, we do the same to animals as we need meat.

"They aren't people they don't matter. I can cut their throat for food. I can enslave them. I can kill them. It's fine! They aren't people! I'm still a good person! Please!"

I agree with the view, I agree with abortion of babies, but I do so through the rejection of the notion that human life, or any life, is valuable. What I believe you, and others are doing is trying to justify abortion through a view in which life is valuable, and it is never going to work as seamlessly as with my viewpoint. The same goes for eating meat. No matter what, you cause pain and suffering for little more than a meal when you eat meat. To justify that without rejecting the ideal that life is inherently valuable requires fallacy after fallacy, requires you twist yourself into a knot and just not think about what you do when you eat that chicken, when you get that abortion.

I value honesty above more than I should, probably, but that is the smug and edgy way I see things.

Babies are less valuable than the "feelings" or the long-term lack of physical change in the mother. Literally, it is better for society to have a mother not weighted down by a pregnancy she didn't want than to have yet another baby to suck down resources for 21 years, who will put the mother into poverty and likely not develop emotionally and physically as well as they would with a mother who chose to have a child. We are in an era where strong humans are better than many humans, and abortion, the push for it, is a change to fit that world. Society is learning to better use its human resources.

Don't bodies have to be alive, have to be able to breathe, drink, swallow, send impulses through your brain, make your organs do all that shit they do without your conscious thought, etc, in order to be bodies, even?

Babies, just as the poor and homeless, have(had) potential. They may not be much today, but give it time and they become great and powerful parts of our society that help people, save lives, and provide benefit to us all.

Babies, not so much as the poor and homeless, lost that potential as society progressed. Where we still give the homeless a chance because it is valuable to do so. Babies no longer are in that situation, because they are no longer valuable unless they are born to the correct situations. In the past, even the poor, abused, and unhealthy could contribute. Today, with wealth inequality rising, with more and more labor requiring a sharp mind and years of investment? You need a solid platform to build on.

There will come a day, for the poor, where we can learn the mind so well that we can predict within reason if a human being will become valuable/useful or not. There will come a day that someone says "I am going to only dedicated resources to those in poverty we know will recover from it".

I am moderately sure society will get pretty ugly as that happens. Imagine the world when we can find the psychopaths in society without error, and ensure they won't be hurting anyone. When we can tell if a child will be gifted or not before they even take their first tests, and the predictions are accurate.

Hitler was "before his time" so to speak. Even today, with genetic screening and abortions we are beginning to kill off the disabled or handicapped before they are even born, and letting it happen has tons of societal moral support behind it. Individually we may be empathetic, but the systems we make out of ourselves are not. They are cold and calculating, and they can always convince us we fight for the right thing, the moral and warm thing, even when we aren't.