The future value argument

Wrong actually - it creates pollution that kills millions a year-  and does stop doing it worth the benefit? Definitely, especially in the long run - but having every corporation suddenly quit is harder than you seem to think it is. 

Also - no - your completely wrong. At least in your interpretation - it is indeed a result of someone being alive - however - you can't just jump to - "therefore the fetus has moral value" the only reason the girl has value is because she isn't a fetus - not the otherway around. If she were a fetus it wouldn't apply, trying to come to your conclusion backwards is assuming your conclusion to be true, nothing more, nothing less. 

In other words - trying to say that someone has value because they haven't had an abortion is technically correct, however, them not being aborted is not the cause of them gaining value - for example - if that person were to be a failed abortion, then they would still have value once they were born. It's merely the stopping of a potential life; however, until that life is definite - there is nothing to be discussed in regards to the fetus's value. 

This also all assumes that a potential person's value is worth more than a actual person - I wouldn't say so. 

I didn't "Mention" it randomly, I was responding to another's post. 

Whether or not it was random is besides the point, fact of the matter is it “mattered” enough to garner a response from you which by the way Benjamin never said anything in regards to the humanity of the fetus, you brought that up on your own.

Wrong again, we had an entire discussion about this in PMs and on other chats, you simply don't know what you're talking about

Thats... cool - however what you don't understand is that this is a continued conversations - they aren't really "seperate" we're just continuing our conversation publically. Again, you don't know what your talking about - as per usual. 

What you don’t understand is I don’t care about your previous conversations fact of the matter is mentioning the humanity of the fetus was not necessary in your response that I pointed out therefore you did it on your own period.

Because it got back to the point we were discussing? Your perception of a fetus isn't relevant, you aren't benjamin, and you obviously don't understand the context. You literally don't know what you're going on about, just stop - at this point I'm thinking its just dishonesty - it would match up with you well. 

Well in that case I guess it does matter huh?

What is the future value?

Well....Future value is a financial term, relative to the value of an investment.

However, in this context, it is the assertion that future generations of life have value.

Yeah I know that suddenly cutting all emmision is hard, nearly impossible to achieve quickly. More problematic is the fact that climate policies only have long-term value, and our unsustainable and dangerous exploitation of Earth has negative effects that only come to the surface long after the fact. It will always be more pleasant to consume more, travel more and extract more, yet in the long run, this lifestyle of humanity has dire consequences.

That is the thing! If current value and pleasure is to be the deciding factor in our every choice, if we disregard future value and future harms of our actions, then we will often be making bad decisions. We need to take into consideration how our actions affect the future.

If you deny that we have a moral duty to think like this, then you get rid of my argument against abortion, but you also undermine the climate movement and climate policies. 

Fun fact: everyone who supports abortion is already born

Theweakeredge is right. You don't know what you are talking about.

As I was saying, fetuses have value the same way babies have, not by impressive self-consciousness or personality, but by the fact that they are literally a stage of human life, and killing them is equivalent to prematurely end a persons life.

"them not being aborted is not the cause of them gaining value...until that life is definite - there is nothing to be discussed in regards to the fetus's value."

You are mistaken in assuming humans "gain" value at some point. First of all, you never inferred when that occurs, "life is definate", meaning your statement is meaningless. Secondly, and this argument you have forgotten to even address, is the fact that by aborting, a woman is undermining her own existence, as her mother acting like her would mean she never existed. 

In short, if abortion was universal, no woman would be born to make more abortions, rendering abortion a self-destructive practice comparable to murder in that respect. By kantian ethics, therefore, abortion is immoral on par with murder. Though, utilitarianism allows it on the specific condition that the future life of the fetus is ignored completely.

Coming from the guy that contradicted himself many times lol, but since “Theweakeredge is right” and all does that mean your little back and forth has come to an end?

The way I've seen it is that future value must take into account the probability of occurring. For instance, if I could invest $1 and get $1 billion in 100 years then that has an expected payoff of 1 billion (minus 1) dollars, however, if the probability of me living another 100 years is only 10% (which is a ridiculously high estimate, unless life extension technology improves quite a bit) then I multiply the expected utility by the probability of the conditions being met.

1 billion x .10 = $100 million, so the future $1 billion, should only be valued at $100 million, and that's not even accounting for inflation. I would probably still accept this particular permutation because it has much better odds than the lottery and I can take specific actions to swing the odds more in my favor, i.e. living more healthily and investing in good health insurance.