Where Does Human Value Come From In a Pro-Abortion Worldview?

Hold on to your seats because this may be hard to follow, I'm not sure.  But this is what is keeping me up tonight.

The worldview of abortion assumes that parents determine the value of their children - the child's value depends on how much they are wanted.  But if the parent determines the child's value, then why is it generally accepted that at point of birth (at the latest), that child should no longer be allowed to be killed by the parent?

If there's a point in the child's life when he has his own value apart from his parent assigning it to him by wanting him - a point that people would agree is the same for each person even if people disagree about when that point is - then wouldn't that erase the notion that parents determine the value of their children?

What if the parents have a different idea of when that point is than when it "actually" is?  So then who or what determines when that point is?  Society?

But certainly entire societies can be tragically wrong about things (e.g. a society that says black people are less valuable than whites), so how can something be trusted as truth simply because a society says it is?

Further, if there is a certain point at which parents can no longer justifiably choose to kill their child, that point must exist because of something about the child, perhaps level of development.

So then, it was level of development all along that determined the child's value, not the parents' wishes after all.  So parents don't determine value?

So now, another question I have is: if parents don't determine value and it's just something that has to do with the child himself like his level of development, and there are all sorts of different opinions of when that point would be when it would no longer be okay to kill the child - some say when a heartbeat is detected, others say at point of birth - and if we are talking about a human life and we acknowledge that we cannot simply eliminate humans once they have reached that point of value at least, then, mustn't we err on the side of not killing a life just in case it is past that point, instead of killing that life - that person - and not being totally positive if it is past that point or not?

And since there are so many different opinions about when that point is, and it is such an important thing we are talking about - human life - then it seems to me there is an astounding level of pride in staunchly sticking to your opinion, especially without trying to find out more about the other opinions of when human life should be valued to the point of protecting it.

Out of respect for the value of human life, whether the point of gaining such value is here or there, wouldn't you want to make absolutely sure you know exactly when that point is so that you do not mistakenly kill a person after they have reached that point?

Unless, of course, you do not count human life as very valuable in general, at any age - which I believe to be ultimately true of anyone who supports abortion - and yet, even those people somehow have a big problem with the murder of, say, middle-aged people.

Or, take George Floyd.  His death sparked massive amounts of outrage at the (supposed) racism of that police officer.

Why did that enrage people so much?  Because he was black?  Yes, but more than that, because he was a human being.  After all, if black people aren't human beings, then they aren't valuable in the same way that other races are.

But black people, of course, are human beings, and for that reason, they are just as valuable as all other races.  So then, if people were/are SO enraged at George Floyd's being killed by that officer, you'd think they'd have a very high view of human life in general, right?  If they didn't, why would they care that much about his death?  (We've just discussed how respect for humans in general precedes - and assumes - respect for blacks.)

But, so many of the people who got so enraged at his death - Black Lives Matter Inc. supporters - support abortion.  Considering what I was saying earlier about how it would make sense to err on the side of preserving valuable life even if you think that point of a life gaining such value is past the point of fertilization, how can this be, if they have such a high respect for human life in general?

There is an inconsistency there.

I don't really have a conclusion, but I say all of this kind of to point out the looniness of the pro-abortion worldview.  I didn't even talk about God at all, the sole reason humans have any value in the first place, but the fact is that there will always be inconsistencies in a worldview that does not revolve around God.