That takes us back to where we started -- a society where something has no value if it does not serve our interests. Most people who identify on the left side of the political spectrum (and Pope Francis in Laudato Si) would argue that consumer capitalism encourages that thinking. So if we are saying that people have an absolute right to follow the logic of autonomous self-interest to the point where anyone who questions autonomous decisions to intentionally destroy early (and late) forms of human life is viewed as a theocrat unworthy of debate, can society realistically limit the logic of self-interest in other spheres? What about our society in 2015 makes you think we can?
I mean, that's not a principle I endorse. I spent some time talking about how the pro-choice movement does not actually look like a collection of people arguing for unbridled self-interest. I specifically addressed the concern that a desire to have abortion be available
because it makes people's lives more comfortable is blinding pro-choicers to the moral value of fetuses. I don't think I ruled anyone a "theocrat unworthy of debate". Of course, it should be pretty unsurprising that the (often technical and quite complex) theological arguments the Catholic Church endorses which produce its whole outlook on human sexuality aren't very persuasive to people who aren't devout Catholics (and I'd note that they aren't even persuasive to lots of devout Catholics!). But nobody else is really even trying - it's a weird quirk of modern American social conservatism that it pretty much only looks to Catholics for intellectualizing. So aside from a minority of Catholics you've got a bunch of people who think abortion is murder but who can't give a coherent explanation for why fertilization makes such a huge difference for the moral value of an egg that isn't 100% a matter of faith ("that's when God puts the soul in") and who simultaneously don't seem all that bothered by all the unintentional fetus destruction that goes on such that it seems unlikely that they
really believe what they claim to believe. This doesn't look like a group of people that you can argue with because they don't appear to have an argument.
This thread provides some decent examples. You've got people expressing discomfort with abortion but whose reason for thinking abortion should be to some extent discouraged is explicitly just that it's what they feel in their hearts. If we're concerned about sloppy moral thinking that just imposes our biases on the world, I'm not sure that the pro-choice side is the obvious place to start looking.
Anyway, like I was saying in my last post this challenge you're setting appears to be way too strong. "Can society realistically limit the logic of self-interest in other spheres" if we place a lot of importance on the logic of autonomous self-interest in this case? Again, you don't think I'm risking the postmodern apocalypse when I go jogging because I'm placing my selfish desire to go exercise above the value of all the oxygen I use up doing it. I'm first and foremost denying that an early fetus has significant value at all, so from my perspective this sort of challenge is only challenging if I'm also supposed to be afraid of doing
anything because I want to. You've got to convince me that I should be afraid that fetuses have significant value before you can get me to worry that I'm inappropriately valuing my (well, other people's, mostly) convenience over the fetus' life. I can still argue for limiting the logic of self-interest in other spheres by virtue of the
harm done by allowing it. I agree that it's often difficult to get people to agree to policy that's not in their immediate self-interest, but this seems like an orthogonal issue to me. We don't make it easier to make policy or achieve social change that's against the interests of people with power by suffering gratuitously over an unrelated disagreement.
But fine, suppose the early fetus is somewhat valuable in itself. Surely your position is not that we can
never put our own interests above those of others'. Like, it's not wrong of me to apply for a job even knowing that other people want that job. Even Jesus only demands that we give shirts to the shirtless if we already have at least two shirts. And pregnancy and childbirth are, I understand, not very fun for lots of women. A right to not be pregnant seems like a pretty important right, as these things go. Fetuses are going to need to be
really valuable before abortion-because-pregnancy-sucks starts being plausibly too-selfish. But again, nobody seems to have much of an argument for why we should think early fetuses approach adult humans in value and even people who claim to believe this don't seem to act like they do.