[deleted]

they are both merely systems on a trajectory towards consciousness. — sackoftrout

This is your claim, but I don't think it is sustainable. There is a distinction, which people clearly do recognize, between actual entities and possible entities, and it is evident that they encode that distinction in their moral intuitions.

[deleted]

[deleted]

As you say, you cannot inflict harm or suffering on a non-conscious object. A foetus is not conscious, therefore you cannot inflict harm on it. Its cognitive abilities are irrelevant. — sackoftrout

I was clearly using both words to mean the same thing. A fetus is most definitely conscious, just not as conscious as a more developed human organism.

Actions of moral relevance can only be carried out in physical reality. — sackoftrout

So you're assuming naturalism.

We probably should have done this at the beginning.

P = "All actual or possible conscious systems must be allowed to develop."
Q = "Unrestricted procreation must be allowed."
R = "Abortion must not be performed."

We have as premises
(1) P ⟶ Q
(2) P ⟶ R
(3) ¬Q

From (1) and (3), we can conclude, by modus tollens:
(4) ¬P

So far, so good.

But then I think you are trying to infer from (2) and (4)
*(5) ¬R

That's no good.(P ⟶ R) & ¬P does not entail ¬R.

Wikipedia calls this Denying the antecedent.

It is perfectly consistent to affirm (1) through (4) and R, as I keep suggesting many people do.

ALSO: You cannot infer from (1) through (3) that R ⟶ P.