The whole reason abortion is legal is because the courts determined that there is no inherent value of a fetus.

Okay, you typed a lot. I've already gotten to this point and so much of what you're saying either simply says contradictory things to what I said (as if saying the opposite refutes it. What's the point of arguing with that?). And then you say this which is completely ignorant over what principles the Supreme Court ruled on.

The judges argued that the very expression that States could decide and regulate abortion (Where it was legal in some states, legal to a certain point in others, etc) reflected an acknowledgment that States aren't obligated to have laws against abortion. And so, if it were just for States to have differing laws or permit abortion in some cases and not others, then the question was "Why is the State interested anyway?" The Courts ruled that the State has no vested interested in abortion and that the right to privacy extends to abortion. If I remember correctly from listening to the oral arguments over a decade again, it was also pointed out that the unborn are not US citizens until they are born. As such, the mothers were compared to other countries and whether we'd intervene if there were disagreements about whether a country was harming its citizens. The uncertainty and diversity of views over the unborn thus had the court throw up it's hands and say "It's not our place to answer this."

I won't respond to the rest of this because it'd take too much time and your response is already full of poor argumentation I don't think a very productive argument would take place.