Now you're just being obtuse. I suggest you go read AL's "Human Life Protection Act," and you'll find the answer to your question.
You asked, I answered. Simple fact.
Of course. I value a three year old's life much more than a 93 year old's.
I am familiar with it. That doesn't change what I said.
Yes, but administering an abortion in AL is a crime.
No, it does not. Suggest you also read up on the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments. The feds do not "supersede" the states when it comes to non enumerated powers. Quite the opposite is true.
Can you cite a law anywhere in the country that puts your opinion into legal practice?
We only sometimes enact punishments for taking people's lives. Sometimes we praise the taking of lives. It's all a matter of perspective.
Why would I? The law does not determine the value of someone's life.
It's application is limited. Most states are not that extreme.
Rights apply to those who are born.
Because deterring people from murder helps to maintain social order and cohesion.
That's not true. Some people fulfill necessary functions within society, so killing them would be destabilizing. Not fetuses though; they don't offer any value to society, and they can be easily replaced.
Because a 93 year old has already lived their life, while a 3 year old is full of potential value to society. However, a 3 year old would not be as valuable as a 23 year old, because a 23 year old has more abilities. Does that make sense?
Fetuses can potentially cause harm to the pregnant woman too. But I have yet to have anyone logically explain how abortion negatively affects someone or society in general. It simply does not. And you are correct, fetuses are easily replaceable. They're effectively the proverbial dime a dozen.
You wouldn't because you can't.
Correct.
Nothing.
Makes no difference to me.
They already are. People will face different punishment, or even no punishment at all, depending on who they killed and why.
That's right. But at least they (hopefully) have value to society. A fetus has none.
Nothing!
"What ifs" is not an argument. If anything, it indicates a lack of a rational argument.
There are already different degrees of murder. I'll bet a murder charge and sentence would likely be more severe if an important figure was murdered over an "ordinary" person.
So, the value of a human life can change depending on their physical location?
Actually, I'll disagree with this. Some things are not for the states to decide. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are not up for a vote, for example. Again, no state has a right to send as a US Representative to the House who will not be at least 24 years old by traditional Western count at the time he/she takes office. And if a state government has a right to use a pregnant woman as a sex slave or involuntary servant for nine months, then I see no reason why it wouldn't have a right to remove one of your kidneys to save the life of a person who needs it.
It isn't that the life is valued. It's that the person and the person's rights as such that are valued. Other persons don't have the right to violate a person's right to life. But a right to life doesn't exist until a person can sustain his or her own life as do the rest of us, by using common property and not abusing another person's rights to life, liberty, and property. That happens at birth.
Are they leeching off society?
Providing something to society is being valuable and necessary for said society.
It already kind of is.