It was her choice to have sex with the boy before it was clear that they would be life partners (usually indicated by marriage).
A dead baby and a broken-hearted teenager are the result of the "choice." Note that is was not HER choice, but his and his parents'.
Most people define a baby as existing outside the body of the mother.
Did she not consent to the abortion? Who took away her free will?
Which is more desirable, a broken-hearted teenager or a teenager unprepared for the responsibility of motherhood and doomed to the likelihood of poverty and unhappiness for all or most of her life, inflicting the same on her offspring? See my last posts regarding quality of life.
False dichotomy. Ever heard of adoption?
Yes, it was her choice to have sex with the boy. A baby was killed as a result.
Most people define a baby as existing outside the body of the mother.
That a "fetus" is a baby is scientific fact. Most pro-choicers would agree with you. Science does not.
Did she not consent to the abortion? Who took away her free will?
She consented under duress because she thought that it was the only way to keep the relationship with the boy. His parents forbade him from seeing her unless she went through with the abortion. It's called COERSION.
Which is more desirable, a broken-hearted teenager or a teenager unprepared for the responsibility of motherhood and doomed to the likelihood of poverty and unhappiness for all or most of her life, inflicting the same on her offspring?
Those are the incoherent ramblings of an insane person. I suppose killing a baby just makes it all better?
Your position as stated above is lunacy.
See my last posts regarding quality of life.
"Quality of life" is another mindless euphamism which is void of meaning.